Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed criticality

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 keep. Rewrite seems to satisfy concerns...for what it's worth, the nom is also a confirmed sock (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed criticality[edit]

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

Article is a dead end and an orphan and cites no references, and language might be confusing... Ajayupai95 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where do I start? No context, not clear what this even all about, no claim of notability, no sources, no wikilinks anywhere else. JIP | Talk 12:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - an atrocious mess, if this subject is notable, which it may be, then it needs redoing from scratch. Also, where was the article creator for 4 years? Kinda weird that they'd jump back into editing after that time with a brand-new article, although it's not surprising the result was a mess. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've written a new 'Principles' paragraph and added a few of the many available references. Would not object if anyone wants to remove that list of EU projects, or find sources for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An excellent rewrite by Chiswick Chap has shown that there are reliable sources for this topic and a search of Google scholar for "Mixed criticality" shows that there are dozens more peer-reviewed articles on this topic. The topic seems highly notable, the article now makes sense and gives an indication of importance--there is no reason to delete this article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now it's been rewritten to a degree that the old article WAS essentially deleted, I'm satisfied that this is notable. Good job Chiswick Chap! Lukeno94 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2013 (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.