Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric refraction
reads like a dicdef, BUT could it be expanded into a full article, or redirected somewhere? I'm not sure or I'd have speedy'd it... Master Thief Garrett 09:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, use stub tags for this. It causes stars to "twinkle" as well as producing some interesting effects at sunrise and sunset. Gazpacho 12:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, topic is encyclopedic and their is a bit more (albeit not much more) than a dicdef. Also, when nominating an article for deletion, you should not tag the edit as "minor". Sjakkalle 12:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- darn, I keep hitting the wrong checkbox... doh... Master Thief Garrett 12:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, keep. WP was founded on articles like this. Don't even think of speedies, and don't VfD them, please. Charles Matthews 13:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and expand. This topic is perfectly valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. Megan1967 04:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Decumanus 07:14, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
- Keep. Edwardian 08:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if Expanded. Might as well vote myself now we've reached consensus... added Peer Review tag, it needs some professional help, but haven't completed the details yet... Master Thief Garrett 12:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As an instrumentalist in astronomy I am a little shocked by this deletion request. Construction of atmospheric refraction correctors for astronomical instruments (and the software to calculate atmospheric refraction effects) is one of the things that keeps us busy ;-) Rnt20 07:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- keep this doesnt look like a speedy candidate `Yuckfoo
- Keep. This page has relevant information that people would find useful when searching for facts on the topic. Mystique 04:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)