Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DAMA/NaI

DAMA/NaI was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Original research. RickK 22:52, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see how this qualifies as "original research". It cites sources. Needs to be cleaned up, but seems legit. — Gwalla | Talk 23:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's reporting on an experiment that has published in peer reviewed papers. Reason does not apply. Move it to "Cleanup". Awolf002 00:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. RickK does it again. Goo_filelist.matd job. Radman1 00:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and ban deletion trolls. Mark Richards 01:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep this Article

I wrote this page and it is not original research, but rather an overview of the literature about the DAMA/NaI experiment. It was needed, because two pages on dark matter, dark matter and wimp referred via an internal link to this page (it didn't exist yet, so I created this page).

So, it would be rather stupid to remove a page that was needed. It is a bit technical, but that can be improved. Also, the main concepts are already explained on the dark matter pages. People coming to this page would probably already have a more than average interests in dark matter and may want to read some of the cited articles I wrote this page and it is not original research, but rather an overview of the literature about the DAMA/NaI experiment. It was needed, because two pages on dark matter, dark matter and wimp referred via an internal link to this page (it didn't exist yet, so I created this page).

So, it would be rather stupid to remove a page that was needed. It is a bit technical, but that can be improved. Also, the main concepts are already explained on the dark matter pages. People coming to this page would probably already have a more than average interests in dark matter and may want to read some of the cited articles.

I checked the page on original research, just to be sure:

Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report, not an essay. Please cite sources.

It is thus clear that this article should stay.

62.238.255.223 00:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Not original research, discusses well-published scientific experiments. I wikified the article a little bit, but it would still benefit from additional cleanup by people more knowledgeable about this subject matter. jni 07:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It's encyclopedic but it reads like original research at present. Andrewa 07:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• keep. Perfectly good wikipedia material. A technical topic not readily intelligible to the layman, to be sure, but some topics are like this, and we can't delete something because the article's essence is difficult to grasp on first reading. Robinh 12:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Probably overkill at this point, but keep for sure! Shane King 13:39, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.