Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invitation to ETI

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 consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to ETI

Article pretty much just regurgitated promotional material from a website encouraging extraterrestrials to use the Internet to contact Earth somehow. Only sources are from the website in question. I tried to do a search, and the only independent reliable source mentioning its existence seems to be a jokey mention in New Scientist making fun of it as part of an overall column (= trivial) and another New Scientist letter to the editor that I can't bring up because not being a subscriber. Fails mainstream independent nontrivial coverage criteria of notability standards as far as I can tell. A couple of people who are notable enough for articles have participated, but notability is not inherited, otherwise anything those people do would be worth an article (frex. Dr. So-and-So sneezed that one time). DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My goodness do I have to give a reason. Let's leave it at non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article author has merged Invitation to ETI to Allen Tough#Invitation to ETI. Powers ^T 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sloppy as far as mergers go... still unsourced and the text was just copied and pasted wholesale with links in wrong places, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merging during an afd is strongly discouraged. I've unmerged, until this is closed. DGG (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No need to delete it because its a crappy notepad website. AJUK ^Talk!! 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Powers ^T 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article but I wrote it because I feel that aliens if they ever meet us are very important. I feel this article is more notable than many articles about video games and kids TV programmes that stay in Wikipedia. Allen Tough is a hard scientist and should be respected. What he writes shouldn’t be confused with UFO based pseudoscience. DreamGuy may feel he has a mission to purify Wikipedia but his blocklog is encyclopaedic. It seems he’s been blocked any number of times but his useful contributions stopped him being permabanned despite so many shorter bans. Is he being useful here or is he trolling? Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drawn Some. His argument is still 100% valid. Spiesr (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything else aside, I just don't see any established notability from the sources given here. Gigs (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Quantpole (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no demonstrated notability. No likelihood of there being any. DGG (talk) 08:09, 9 May 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.