Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse Doppler effect

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. All Copyvio appears to have been removed, and - as noted - sources have been added. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Doppler effect

This article makes extraordinary claims with no references. At best, it is a complete misunderstanding. Habashia (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup When searching for this, I can find several sources which mention this, including this article which describes in more detail the experiment in our article, as well asthis abstract from MIT that specifically goes out to prove that this does not exist, proving that, as the nominator says, this phenomenon is a complete misunderstanding. While conflicting, there are multiple reliable sources to confirm that this is not a hoax and was actually honestly researched. The article could be cleaned up to describe the experiment in better details and enumerate why this theory is incorrect. I've added the above sources to the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is now sourced and seems to meet the WP:N standards. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets basic wiki standards and can be improved further. Dhshah (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I agree with Minimaki. It is a copyright violation. Dhshah (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This apparently is a copyright violation of this article from 2003, and stayed in Wikipedia essentially unmodified since 2004. An article about the term may or may not make sense, but the current text has to go. --Minimaki (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the copy violation and added another ref. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be deleted - now the copied text is in all revisions except the last one. --Minimaki (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:RS, quite a lot of press[1] and academic coverage [2]. Seems to have quite a long history of investigation. --Salix alba (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand to include sources mentioned by Hersfold. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended to remove the (I think false) implication that the phenomenon was demonstrated conclusively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habashia (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (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.