Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annotea (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annotea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source I can find that might come close to satisfying WP:V and WP:N is this paper, part of the "Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web". It's highly cited, but I noted that the authors are part of the Annotea development team. Could not find any independent sources from reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This will become an internet standard. http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/ explains it all quite well. Google news search shows results, the first one being [1] one talking about it. Dream Focus 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep Nontrivial journal and book coverage/mentions. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Google Book and Google Scholar results look very promising. Most of them provide significant coverage, and at least some of them appear to be independent:[2][3][4][5]. — Rankiri (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it was non trivial work not written by Koivunen that I was looking for. The Schroeter/Hunter/Newman paper is a possibility, but I'm never too sure about how many scholarly citations are adequate. Is 14 really enough? The book by Nagao looks fine. Marasmusine (talk)

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.