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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:16Z

Roy A. Tucker[edit]

Roy A. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is a stub and their are other articles about this man that contain more information. Heetbusters123 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the fact that the page is a stub isn't a reason for deletion. Merge if necessary to the other articles mentioned by the nominator. I don't see why this was taken to AfD at all. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, as User:Walton_monarchist89 points out. --Eastmain 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per User:Walton_monarchist89. If there are other (better) articles out there then, as the aforementioned user stated,

this shouldn't have been brought to an discussion.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with this?)} 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously prominent astronomer . His discoveries are mentioned as N. Appropriate tag would have been "expand" If there is more info on the articles about his work, it should be added here; we dont usually merge the bio page into the work.DGG 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a well-known astronomer, and hopefully someone will expand the stub. Royalbroil ^T : C 05:30, 26 February 2007 (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.