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.
Barely cited, barely notable. Most of the article is cut'n'pasted OR from the project's wiki. Puffery. Page talks about "forthcoming" plans cited to the single RS, which is from 2006.
WP:BEFORE check shows little to no evidence of notability. Started by a friend of the founder, but problems have been flagged for a couple of years unfixed. The history shows this has never been an adequate article, since its recreation in 2009.
David Gerard (
talk)
11:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: There are better sources than are on the article now, with more than passing references to hexayurts. A quick search finds articles from
Wired,
Wired again,
BoingBoing and
FastCompany. The article needs serious work, but it's not obvious that it fails notability. I only say weak keep because I can't see myself doing the necessary work in the near future. --
Chriswaterguytalk15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I just removed all the dubious and completely uncited content - there are literally three sentences left. (I left the completely uncited intro, else it would have been just the third sentence.) If there's an article to be written about this, the first thing is for someone to bother writing it -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
delete even after some cleanup it remains clearly promotional; there are insufficient sources with which to generate a decent Wikipedia article.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:58, 12 June 2018 (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.
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.
Barely cited, barely notable. Most of the article is cut'n'pasted OR from the project's wiki. Puffery. Page talks about "forthcoming" plans cited to the single RS, which is from 2006.
WP:BEFORE check shows little to no evidence of notability. Started by a friend of the founder, but problems have been flagged for a couple of years unfixed. The history shows this has never been an adequate article, since its recreation in 2009.
David Gerard (
talk)
11:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: There are better sources than are on the article now, with more than passing references to hexayurts. A quick search finds articles from
Wired,
Wired again,
BoingBoing and
FastCompany. The article needs serious work, but it's not obvious that it fails notability. I only say weak keep because I can't see myself doing the necessary work in the near future. --
Chriswaterguytalk15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I just removed all the dubious and completely uncited content - there are literally three sentences left. (I left the completely uncited intro, else it would have been just the third sentence.) If there's an article to be written about this, the first thing is for someone to bother writing it -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
delete even after some cleanup it remains clearly promotional; there are insufficient sources with which to generate a decent Wikipedia article.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:58, 12 June 2018 (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.