Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starlight Information Visualization System

Starlight Information Visualization System

Procedural nomination. Concerns were point-of-view and doubtful notability but I'm hoping some AfD regulars will be interested in saving it. Note of course that it is clearly unacceptable in its current form. Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is it possible to put on one of those lists for improvement or expansion? It could be a really interesting article if properly written and sourced. I definitely agree that it needs much work before it is up to Wiki standards. Renee 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could list it at Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit or Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. My prefered solution is to put it up for deletion and wait for User:DGG to notice :-) Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well here I am, but as this isn't my subject, all I can see is that there are 36 articles in google scholar [1], if someone can work from there. But I had not known I was unique in having heard of that way of finding sources. DGG (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It seems to be an interesting piece of technology, but I can't find any evidence of notability. I am on the fence for now. If it is kept, it needs a rewrite. Darkcraft 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chaser - T 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite. If no-one is willing to put in the effort, it needs to be stripped right down to basics. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cavalry. Definitely doesn't belong in its current form. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued above. The article still needs to be rewritten, though. Beno1000 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or delete per Beno1000. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^s⁾ 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with much editing needed I added a couple more URL's to source from, one very cut and dry, another with lots of citable content.... though the latter looks like Battle's writing, as well. Ronabop 06:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a pass through to yank blatant PR and redundant phrasing. Also brilliantly introduced a paradigm shift into the future of this article by effortlessly improving the content through judicious and timely modifications, thus enabling end-users more accurate data to inform their real time decisions on AfD. :-) Ronabop 06:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting project with Global War on Terror implementations [2][3][4]. It's not a product per se so spam isn't really an issue. A number of Google Scholar results (some also in Google Books, mainly two key academic papers). --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources and it seems notable. Fosnez 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It still has some considerable way to go before it's a good article, but it does have some references now, and it seems somewhat noteable.Mayalld 13:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient material available from the references now listed in the article. Google scholar and Google books have plenty more material. -- Jreferee t/c 09:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]