Contested WP:PROD. Original concern was "369 Google hits". I do not think this qualifies for the advertising/spam clause of WP:CSD#G11, as the article just explains what the system does without even giving an external link. That said, there could be more sources and the relevance should be explained more clearly. Abstain for now. Kusma (討論) 08:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MER-C 09:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, if the article is not sourced, it required sourcing, not deletion. The article is not vanity or advertiseement since it makes no reference to whoever distributes or sells this (it is government-developed). The software is used by several government agencies: [1][2][3] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Lack of sources is indeed a criteria for deletion, under WP:V. If you have sources, add them to the article before it goes away. --Roninbk t c e # 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- That is not correct. WP:V states than an article should be verifiable, not verified. Lack of listed sources is different from lack of existing sources. If no sources are listed, they should be added, if no sources exist, the article should be deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Allow me to quote directly from WP:V, (emphasis mine) "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
- If you found that, you probably also read the next two sentences. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I did. And if you read further, it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." The point I am trying to make is that if nobody can be arsed to add links to the article, then it needs to be deleted. It is not enough that it is theoretically possible to find sources for the article. --RoninBKTCE# 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- And my point is that if an article is reasonably encyclopedic (which ofcourse is worth a discussion by itself), you should give editors some time to add sources. You cannot force sources onto an article by listing it at AfD. AfD is meant for deletion, not for asking for sources (there are tags for that). This article has been around only since the 6th of october and deserves some time to develop before it is listed here. Such a quick deletion after it was created might be suitable for really bad articles, but not if the main concern is the lack of sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let's take a step back here. The main concern over this article was that someone thought it was spam. It was taken here because of an edit war. This is why the article needs to be sourced, to prove it's not spam. And by the way, thank you for adding the links you found. That was all I was asing for. --RoninBKTCE# 14:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are quite right that we got a bit carried away. But the article ended up here because of one editor, who originally tagged it for speedy deletion and who did show quite some bad faith when others not agreed to the speedy [4] and to the prod [5]. Note that removing these tags is specifically allowed by policy. But then again, you are right any article should be referenced properly. Nevertheless, I hope the links I provided clarify things a bit and we will see what happens :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let's take a step back here. The main concern over this article was that someone thought it was spam. It was taken here because of an edit war. This is why the article needs to be sourced, to prove it's not spam. And by the way, thank you for adding the links you found. That was all I was asing for. --RoninBKTCE# 14:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- And my point is that if an article is reasonably encyclopedic (which ofcourse is worth a discussion by itself), you should give editors some time to add sources. You cannot force sources onto an article by listing it at AfD. AfD is meant for deletion, not for asking for sources (there are tags for that). This article has been around only since the 6th of october and deserves some time to develop before it is listed here. Such a quick deletion after it was created might be suitable for really bad articles, but not if the main concern is the lack of sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I did. And if you read further, it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." The point I am trying to make is that if nobody can be arsed to add links to the article, then it needs to be deleted. It is not enough that it is theoretically possible to find sources for the article. --RoninBKTCE# 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you found that, you probably also read the next two sentences. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Allow me to quote directly from WP:V, (emphasis mine) "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
- That is not correct. WP:V states than an article should be verifiable, not verified. Lack of listed sources is different from lack of existing sources. If no sources are listed, they should be added, if no sources exist, the article should be deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Lack of sources is indeed a criteria for deletion, under WP:V. If you have sources, add them to the article before it goes away. --Roninbk t c e # 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- keep: It's not an ad.. I am the author of the article and thought it might be nice to have. people are always asking me what ODIS is (I am a 911 police dispatcher) and now I can tell them to look it up on Wikipedia. Evaunit511 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems fairly interesting to me, though it does require a significant rewrite. ie: the article does not explain where this system is used until the very last sentence. Also, is it used exclusively in Oklahoma? There is potential though. Resolute 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it may not be spam but it is useless. Arfenhouse is way more notable than this and it got deleted. Who the hell looks up this stuff anyway? Doesn't anybody here understand the meaning of non-notable? oTHErONE (Contribs) 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced, unclear, and unnotable. Not spam, but entirely not spam. Eusebeus 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- As explained above, if it is unsourced it requires sourcing, if it is unclear, it requires a rewrite. None of those are reasons for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)