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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squint (antenna)[edit]

Squint (antenna) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dicdef, has a source but does not appear notable Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: What about this gives the appearance of non-notablity? Have you checked antenna texts for references? ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Kvng: I see nothing that makes it more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that WP:NOT#DICT somehow applies here? Care to elaborate? ~Kvng (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It defines what it is, nothing more. Doesn't explain why it's something that should be here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DICT applies when it is not possible to write an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Do you beleive that is the case here? There's no justification for deleting a stub in need of development. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly acceptable, encyclopedic article. I eagerly await the nominator's answer to Kvng's question. Rentier (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the argument I made. I claim that the subject is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on a cursory literature review: I see multiple books and papers that devote lots of space to various aspects and applications of the antenna squint. I don't feel obliged to go into more detail in absence of a valid argument for deletion. Rentier (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, topic is notable, with many sources that discuss it in detail. e.g. "Phased-Array Antenna Beam Squinting Related to Frequency Dependency of Delay Circuits"; "Effect of Wideband Beam Squint on Codebook Design in Phased-Array Wireless Systems"; "Cross Polarization and Beam Squint in Single and Dual Offset Reflector Antennas", etc. It's a major concept in antenna design. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A simple WP:BEFORE type search shows many reliable references. In addition to the RS pointed out by Chiswick Chap, I added two refs to the article, both of them handbooks of antenna design. This is a basic topic in phased-array and traveling-wave antenna design and performance. --Mark viking (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2017 (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.