Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analog study Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Analog_study

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 redirect to Analog observation. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analog_study (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)

This page covers the same subject as Analog_observation, only in far less detail. I propose a redirect to said article be put in its place. Kookas (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Analog observation as plausible search term. There in no new material in the shorter article to merge. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Plausible search term and the concepts appear to be the same. Or, since "Analog study" seems to be more used given the hit numbers and entries on Google Scholar, delete and move Analog observation to this title.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:13, 6 January 2016 (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.