Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyena

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 no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shyena[edit]

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

The article content has been copied to Defence Research and Development Organisation#Torpedoes. This article adds nothing new and the subject of the article is not notable. Anir1uph (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing a bit of research on the topic, I don't think the article on Shyena can be expanded enough to include more detail than the DRDO article does. Right now the only source cited resolved to a dead link; other things I've read indicate this is a very experimental project, and thus not a lot of encyclopedic content can be found to build an article. Open to being convinced otherwise. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some references and sections. The scope of the article is very short because officially the missile has not yet been deployed so a lot of details are still under wraps. But yes, the torpedo has been mentioned a lot Wikishagnik (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Defence Research and Development Organisation#Torpedoes, no prejudice to recreation if more WP:Reliable Sources and details appear. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess enough new material and sources have been added (thanks to Wikishagnik) to keep the article. Anir1uph (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2012 (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.