Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starlight Information Visualization System

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. John254 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Information Visualization System

Procedural nomination. Concerns were point-of-view and doubtful notability but I'm hoping some AfD regulars will be interested in saving it. Note of course that it is clearly unacceptable in its current form. Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is it possible to put on one of those lists for improvement or expansion? It could be a really interesting article if properly written and sourced. I definitely agree that it needs much work before it is up to Wiki standards. Renee 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could list it at Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit or Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. My prefered solution is to put it up for deletion and wait for User:DGG to notice :-) Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well here I am, but as this isn't my subject, all I can see is that there are 36 articles in google scholar [1], if someone can work from there. But I had not known I was unique in having heard of that way of finding sources. DGG (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It seems to be an interesting piece of technology, but I can't find any evidence of notability. I am on the fence for now. If it is kept, it needs a rewrite. Darkcraft 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chaser - T 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite. If no-one is willing to put in the effort, it needs to be stripped right down to basics. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavalry. Definitely doesn't belong in its current form. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued above. The article still needs to be rewritten, though. Beno1000 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or delete per Beno1000. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^s⁾ 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with much editing needed I added a couple more URL's to source from, one very cut and dry, another with lots of citable content.... though the latter looks like Battle's writing, as well. Ronabop 06:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a pass through to yank blatant PR and redundant phrasing. Also brilliantly introduced a paradigm shift into the future of this article by effortlessly improving the content through judicious and timely modifications, thus enabling end-users more accurate data to inform their real time decisions on AfD. :-) Ronabop 06:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting project with Global War on Terror implementations [2][3][4]. It's not a product per se so spam isn't really an issue. A number of Google Scholar results (some also in Google Books, mainly two key academic papers). --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources and it seems notable. Fosnez 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It still has some considerable way to go before it's a good article, but it does have some references now, and it seems somewhat noteable.Mayalld 13:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient material available from the references now listed in the article. Google scholar and Google books have plenty more material. -- Jreferee t/c 09:07, 5 October 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.