Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyetap
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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.
]Eyetap
Non-notable product. — Dædαlus Contribs 22:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Poorly ]
You guys just want to delete it because it's cool. Yes it could use some better sources but deleting it won't solve anything. Find sources and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.232.130 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the fence: if it had better sources (and no, I don't have time to look for any at the moment), I'd say keep, because it sounds like a perfectly notable article. The issue is solely its lack of sources, not its lack of notability (or if anyone has any notability issues, they haven't made them knowsn, so it defaults to the same thing.) --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination consists entirely of an argument to avoid. I see [1][2][3][4][5] as strong indicators of notability. ZabMilenko 08:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is notable with the new refrences that i am adding. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to ]
- Keep since the concept is notable and published widely and referenced by numerous different organizations and researchers, even though the product itself isn't yet in widespread use (i.e. not widely commercialized yet). Just because a product is not widely mass-produced does not necessarily mean that the ideas, concepts, research, and scholarship is irrelevant.Glogger (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an issue about fixing something, not deleting it, unless Wikipedia's goal is form over content. Well, ya, it often is. To say that this invention (which a number of my friends have actually used and is the creation of a well published and well documented inventor) which has been shown in feature film length documentaries and is of undisputed existence should be deleted because someone's writing skills aren't up to snuff is exclusionist and I would say discriminatory. You don't delete knowledge because it is poorly formatted. You nurture knowledge. I'd write it, but I personally don't have access to the information, and I'm not a certified expert, which seems to be the requirements these days. But keep it. Oh, and Dædαlus showing how many edits he's got as proof of his rightness is just old school tenure power plays in a new space. Rather offensive. --SarahSmiles (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No question. Article's substandard, but invention's both legit and widely known. (Bias: I know steve and have seen the eyetap and have written in reference to it, but I have no personal interest in it). Wise to say "fix it now or it goes" but if it is not to be fixed by the inventor, it is really unfair to delete it because no one else is stepping up. Some problematic ethical issues going on here. Anyway. I'll add some refs that I feel qualified to add, and I hope others too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahSmiles (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 September 2009 (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.