Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Path generator
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, this is an utterly non-notable computer package. It is used by Wikipedia editors (including me). However, noone else uses it or has commented on it. Nilfanion (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP- This is notable. Storm05 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How? It's used by a few users. The program doesn't even have a name! Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesnt matter because the article talks about storm path generators in general, not just the one on wikipedia. Storm05 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thats still an unnotable topic. However this article is about the WP one mostly. One full section is a copy/paste of the instructions for it. That section violates WP:ASR and WP:NOT a usage guide.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I did all my best to make it encyclopedic. Storm05 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thats still an unnotable topic. However this article is about the WP one mostly. One full section is a copy/paste of the instructions for it. That section violates WP:ASR and WP:NOT a usage guide.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesnt matter because the article talks about storm path generators in general, not just the one on wikipedia. Storm05 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How? It's used by a few users. The program doesn't even have a name! Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete. There is absolutely no need for this on Wikipedia. It isn't encyclopediac, and there's no links even proving what is said. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's been cleaned up and looks encyclopedic now. Even if it didn't, that wouldn't be grounds for deletion, just for cleanup. --Daniel Olsen 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, there is 0 verifiable content to this article, beyond the self-referencing. More to the point it has no encyclopedic value as this seems a verrry artificial construct. The only "Storm Path generator" there is any evidence actually exists is the Wikipedia one, the orgs mentioned could just use photoshop.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The term "storm path generator" does not seem to really exist, so this is probably all original research. I'd possibly change this to neutral if you made an article on "methods of hurricane track representations" or something, but I don't think there'd be much content there. If the intent was to educate others about such map generators and where to get them, I'd suggest creating this content elsewhere. —AySz88\^-^ 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if 0 Google hits = 0 notability. :) Dlohcierekim 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OR. Delete. – Chacor 06:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-I renamed the article based on the criteria above. Storm05 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. This article is also unnecessary. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete two words, non-notable. Hello32020 00:58, 3 September 2006 (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.