Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Feedback Protocol
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr.Z-man (talk | contribs) at 05:08, 13 December 2007 (Closing debate; result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 05:08, 13 December 2007 by Mr.Z-man (talk | contribs) (Closing debate; result was delete)
- 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 delete. The burden of proof of notability/verifiability is on those who support keeping. No sources were provided, even after a relisting and the article is almost speedy deletable as WP:CSD#A1 (almost no context). Mr.Z-man 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dynamic Feedback Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Does not assert notability. Article really doesn't have any substance. No sources, etc. Torc2 (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand important concept. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Important enough that it's been sitting in this state, without any references or sources and with absolutely nothing linked to it for two and a half years? Torc2 (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are con — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cburnett (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am con? Are you stalking me by going through the AfDs I have and voting keep? Torc2 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no valid deletion criteria presented. Need of cleanup and expansion are not valid reasons. Cburnett 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - WP:N is exceptionally clear about the requirement that an article provide citations that establish its subject's notability. What about this article is notable? Torc2 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:VERIFY, which clearly states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." — Satori Son 14:21, 12 December 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.