Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMBY

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMBY

Unpopular mapping tool with article based on a very close paraphrase of this blog post. Attempting to search for references would mean too many false positives. Alexius08 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I haven't seen such an akward deletion rationale in a while. What exactly do you mean by Attempting to search for references would mean too many false positives. ?Smallman12q (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to mean that the nominator doesn't know whether sources exist, because xe hasn't looked for them. So xe hasn't come across things like this or this, for examples, which show how this subject is generally addressed outside of Wikipedia, and so how it is best addressed inside Wikipedia — which can be achieved with the page renaming tool and the page editing tool in this case, given that no "list of" article appears to yet exist. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copyvio cleared as part of WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, no longer infringes. I've added two sources, the relevant wikiproject banners, delsorted and flagged for attention with WP:ENERGY. I'd further kindly request that the nominator please detail what steps he has taken in accordance to WP:BEFORE, thank you. MLauba (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not find the sources listed compelling, nor find this project of particular notability. Rotovia (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources offered seem to be mostly listings of similar software or interfces. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Forbes mention is not a listing of similar software, but it is also very brief. If there was slightly more coverage, I'd suggest merging & redirecting to NREL's page. Because there are so few sources, that doesn't seem to be needed. Not opposed to including this in NREL or even writing a new article if more sources came to light. --Karnesky (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (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.