Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punchscan

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 16:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punchscan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It received some coverage briefly during a limited period but notability does not seem to be sustained and it did not reach to the level of notability for WP:NCORP, WP:NPRODUCT. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose it should be merged into Scantegrity article. PulpSpy (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTTEMP applies. This generated significant, independent, and reliable coverage as demonstrated by the references already in the article. Google Scholar also generates multiple results: [1]. While, like many university research projects, it has not generated a commercial product, it was a notable research effort that received substantial coverage. [[Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTCLEANUP also applies in terms of the dead links. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Link to the source please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relisting comment As mentioned, the references in the article are mostly in the form of broken links so the advice of the LTTS essay is inapplicable. I have, however, verified them myself using a university library to which I have access. According to the Verifiability policy, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Essays, as you know, do not take precedence over policy. The Google Scholar link should, however, provide interested editors enough context to verify for themselves that there had been academic discussion of the article subject at that point in time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 15 April 2020 (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.