Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AUFS

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. No support for deletion. Merge proposals can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AUFS[edit]

[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)

Non notable subject that has no significant coverage so it fails easily WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* RedirectArticle needs to revert back to oldid=267561459 or become a DAB. May add interim hatnote. Even if surviving does not own the AUFS space and would require rename Article would need improvement to survive.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus - But if consensus is a keep the article should be renamed to Absorbance Units Full Scale or Absorbance units full scale and AUFS should be converted from a redirect to a dab. Should this be a keep I will WP:BOLDly that after the keep unless there is objection now in which case I would likely go to WP:REQMOVE. See also Article title format as why the current (ambiguous) title is unsuitable. If not a keep then should revert to oldid=267561459 (a redirect) or a DAB. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information, but I have no problem with a merge somewhere else, perhaps High-performance liquid chromatography. Or Absorbance which is where Absorbance Units redirects. It's a widely used term of art appearing in numerous textbooks, so should go somewhere on Wikipedia. This page is a much better source than the forum post currently in our article, and has a rather better explanation than our article. SpinningSpark 16:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the article, if a 'keeper' doesnt feel its an improvement your welcome to the rollback. I am not doing a rescue, but hopefully the cites are useful ... more would be needed to survive. The body would need to be expanded out and the content would need to match the cites for article survival. If attempting a merge avoidance of any undue weight or disruption to the target is critically important. I do note that this seems to be one of many acronyms in this area and the article would need to indicate why this is different. My main concern is AUFs is back to a redirect or a dab. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

KEEP important definition for chemistry students Tiptopper (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (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.