Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock waves in astrophysics

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The result was nomination withdrawn with no arguments to delete (non-admin closure). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock waves in astrophysics[edit]

~~While the article has citations, it reads like an original essay by the author, thus coming under WP:ESSAY.~~ Cleanup tags should be enough. Withdrawn. Tyrenon (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cited, WP:ESSAY and WP:ESSAYS have nothing to do with this. The article probably sounds like it was written by the author because it was written by the author. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bdb, what I was aiming for was that the article feels like a synthesis of sources. Which was a misread of the synthesis rule.Tyrenon (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, I am the author, so I'm a bit biased. The topic of astrophysical hydrodynamics / radiation hydrodynamics is practically missing in Wikipedia. The subject is studied for about 80 years, and has many consequences and relations (e.g Supernova remnants, cosmic rays, Gamma Ray Bursts and many more). I admit it's not well written yet, and I should still write both relativistic shocks and radiation mediated shocks to complete the picture. Ignoring the subject is wrong, in my opinion. Ranny1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Ranny, lemme stack some tags on the article for improvement to try and flag down some assistance if any comes traveling by. (Edit: Added a pair of tags to the article)Tyrenon (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I should be able to do it by myself, since I'm sort of an expert on this subject. My problem, I guess, is what you would call "style". However I'm alone there, and trying to slowly improve the article.Ranny1 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I didn't see anything that smacked of OR/personal bias in the article and it is definitely a notable topic in astronomy. It needs time to develop fully.—RJH (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2009 (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.