Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hata Model for Urban Areas

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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hata Model for Urban Areas

I cannot find sources to back up this article and its half-gibberish statements. Ipatrol (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Makes perfect sense to me - it's a formula that approximates how radio waves propagate in cities. (Just because you don't understand an article doesn't make it "gibberish"!) As far as sources go, there are two references given in the text. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I just did a couple of quick Google searches:
- "Hata Model" urban - Google Book Search
- "Hata Model" urban - Google Scholar

which gave me, respectively, 237 and 755 hits. Or in other words, there's no shortage of possible sources if more are needed. This article has been around since 2006, and the "half-gibberish" comment may say more about the nomination than it does about the article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is poorly written and poorly sourced, but makes a strong claim of notability. The problems are surmountable and can be dealt with through cleanup rather than deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't confuse relevance with article quality. Mange01 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 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.