Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina PeopleFinder Project
- 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Katrina PeopleFinder Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
No sources or claims to notability. Wyington Duarm 21:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References to the project from newspapers that demonstrate notability are trivially easy to find in google's archive news search (see here) . I have already added a couple of sources where I have access to the articles without additional expense. -- SiobhanHansa 22:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-two sources isn't that much. Mynglestine 04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Weak, because it's a lame article about a good subject. The project is notable, in that it was a joint effort by computer experts volunteering their time to create a database; with the assistance of other volunteers who entered the data, the db kept track of thousands of persons displaced by an unprecedented American disaster. The article could be improved in many ways, including more sources that point to the project's accomplishments, anecdotes, some technical details, whether the project has been a model to similar projects, etc. Mandsford 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two sources ISN'T THAT MUCH. There are no claims to this site's notability, so quit insisting there are. Mynglestine 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a notable program and a good subject for an encyclopedia article. Capmango 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A poorly written article is not a good reason for deletion, and it is clear that more sources do exist. Evouga 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep even if the NYTimes article were the only source, it's still be fringe notable. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: This may be a bad faith nomination: from an account created only yesterday, nom's put up several articles for deletion. There may also be sockpuppetry at work; User:Mynglestine is likewise a near-SPA, and has strangely (and solely) chimed in on all nom's recent AfDs. RGTraynor 18:04, 20 June 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.