Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project BLAST

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project BLAST

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

I can't find evidence that this graduate student project is notable. Google search does not result in significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is a relatively new project that began September 2012. We have only recently produced our first prototype and started testing. This is the first project of its type at the University of Southampton and as such we are trying to increase the profile and project achievements. This wikipedia page was hoped to be part of that effort. ... TDrinkwater 20:00, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

FYI - We had hoped to build a page something similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArduSat - The ArduSat page. Just a brief description of the project. ... TDrinkwater 20:03, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

The ArduSat article includes links to independent sources that discuss the project. That's what's required for a Wikipedia article — WP:Notability. ... discospinster _talk 19:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Balloon News article not sufficient? This was published by a source independent to the group. ... TDrinkwater 20:09, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing as this is an autobiography of the group, and it's not notable enough. I noticed that TDrinkwater pointed out that Balloon News covered them. However, that's a Wordpress site. I'm not sure that would be considered a reliable source, and it could be your group for all we know. ChaseAm (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to point out that the independent Balloon News website has details of the owner/author. Potentially it could be my group undercover, but why would we bother? This isn't a master fraud, it's making a wikipedia page for a University Project. I would have hoped for more support from the community, i'd urge less scepticism and to put this debate into context. TDrinkwater 20:35, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

I do understand your discouragement, however, it's not so much that we don't support you, it's that we have policies that we abide by. As of right now, your project just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps take it to an online forum community meant specifically for people with projects, or a community interested in balloons? I'd love to assist you with that, if you're interested. As far as that source you're referring to goes, take a look at WP:SPS. Please don't be discouraged ChaseAm (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFT. Unfortunately for the project participants, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to commemorate that which the world has found notable, not to serve as an advertising platform. Our notion of "reliable sources" aren't Wordpress sites, but independent media outlets such as the Daily Echo and BBC South. Ravenswing 04:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Couldn't have said it better ChaseAm (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (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.