Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Wireless

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 keep, article being now reliable sourced. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Wireless

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link other than the website in the article is a blog. Blogs are usually not even allowed as links for articles (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - needs some improvement, but Seattle Wireless is surely the biggest mover in commumity supported public WiFi access. Ace of Risk 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a very large and very visible community of hunderds of Seattlites, who assembled this this non-profit to increase access in their community. As valid as Sierra Club or any other non-profit. pr. BillDrisco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.113.55 (talk • contribs) 3:11, 27 July 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• This was a tough delete for me. What tipped it over the edge was that there was no verifiable sources provided in the article nor even on their web-page (that I could find).--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but cleanup and improve this article. --Bigtop 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced POV --Samael775 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I added these article links to External links, some which mention the company in passing and some which cover it significantly. It appears to be notable. I'd say cleanup and improve, rather than delete. TransUtopian 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cave, Damien, "Unchaining the Net", Salon.com, 2000-12-01

Kahney, Leander, "Home-grown Wireless Networks", TheFeature, 2001-05-07

Fleishman, Glenn, "The revolution may be wireless", Seattle Weekly, 2001-07-18

O'Shea, Dan, "Peace, Love & Wi-Fi", Telephony Online, 2002-05-18

Kharif, Olga, "Footing the Bill for Free Wi-Fi", BusinessWeek, 2002-09-17

Helm, Kristi, "Seattle's packed with Wi-Fi spots", The Seattle Times, 2005-02-18

• Delete - just someone's point of view. I thought that was not allow as OR. GrapePie 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: only if the content is inherently an OR essay. There are significant numbers of newspaper articles, so I'd vote Keep and cleanup. --ColourBurst 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A good handfull of regular editors, and some rather impressive cited references. It's just a pity that the official website makes a very poor impression. LinaMishima 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. TransUtopian's links are a good start. --Anirvan 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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.