Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near-visible EMR

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near-visible EMR

Page is about a small frequency range of electromagnetic radiation. The information is already covered by several articles on the subject, and this article does little to assert the importance of this particlar distinction.

Delete as nominator. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electromagnetic spectrum and merge any pertinent information into Electromagnetic spectrum and Electromagnetic radiation (or other pages as necessary). - Runch 21:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the content of this article could have been included into other articles. However, it is exclusively based on the science/astrophysics definition, not addressing the effects or usage of a certain wavelength range. Using the other articles as link target is just not really suitable for some technical articles. The reader already knows the operate using light. But does not want to browse the long EMR explanation. I have tried to address some experts on the subject. User:Yy-bo 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can pipelink to the appropriate section in Electromagnetic spectrum (once written). There is no need for a reader to have to browse through the whole article. Alternatively, if you are only refering to NIR then you could pipelink to the appropriate section in infrared. A better use of your time, I think, would be to improve on these article rather than creating a spinoff. David D. (Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which other articles cover the astrophysics concept? Visible light is also about a very narrow range of electromagnetic radiation, which is already covered by other articles. — Omegatron 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --McGeddon 02:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please could an admin look at this author's contributions and guide their hand towards the creation and editing of valuable, notable and great articles. Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information You need to file a seperate request for comment. Your trolling does not belong here. User:Yy-bo 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not trolling, you have a genuine problem making understandable statements, though to your credit you've been doing a lot better recently than you used to. I should also point out that the last request for comment you made was turned against you, and you completely ignored it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am not trolling him. He has the potential, when he chooses, to create excellence. All I hope for is that guidance will be given towards achieving it. However this article is not an excellent one. Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first sentence of the article states, Near-visible EMR is the frequency range from far-infrared to far-utraviolet. This looks wrong right off the bat. Shouldn't near-visible EMR include only the frequencies of NIR (700 to 1000 nm) and NUV (380–200 nm)? What does this article add to wikipedia that is not already covered in ultraviolet and infrared? The desired goal or perspective of this article is not clear to me. I feel frustrated that I have to vote this way as User:Yy-bo has put in a lot of effort here. But to survive it needs to be relevant and correct. At present it is neither, I'm sorry, but quality does matter. David D. (Talk) 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as recommended by Runch, above. The Photon 03:39, 15 September 2006 (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.