Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RH1750

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to MIL-STD-1750A. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RH1750

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consists of one sentence, no sources, doesn't meat GNG. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I am taking sides just yet, but many articles have only one sentence and they are not nominated for deletion. As for having only one source, yes, that is not good, but if you look up RH1750 on Google it is very easy to find a source that will go with the corresponding information, thus also possibly meeting the notability guidelines. I say maybe I could do some major renovations to this article or we just let it be. Or maybe it will be deleted because of notability guidelines. I think this needs more investigations before being deleted or being saved. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 03:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a suitable redirect target: MIL-STD-1750A. Pavlor (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirection to MIL-STD-1750A is hardly worthwhile, as the single sentence of information is already in that article. Athel cb (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading my earlier comment again I think it makes little sense. I'm not sure what I was thinking, but anyway, Redirect is the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MIL-STD-1750A#Implementations, where it is described. That this is a rad-hardened version of a 1750 design is verifiable.[1][2] This seems like a plausible search search term, so a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 08:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One or two line, un-sourced, and too technical. I tried googling to find sources, but you get anything and everything. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.