Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Window sitter

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. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Window sitter

Window sitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article has come under discussion though another unrelated thing over at the anime and manga project, concerns include: The article being entirely original research, no sources are present, and also fails WP:Notability as it lacks third party sources. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Just to restate my comments from WT:ANIME, the article is entirely original research, has no sources whatsoever (an image gallery is not a source), and does not shows any indications of notability via reliable, third-party sources. Further, this term falls into the category of neologisms as a Google search for reliable sources does not turn up anything. —Farix (t | c) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not convinced this isn't notable just from my personal experience at having seen a number of these programs over the years, but if nothing concrete can be found then it should probably go. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete OR, no notability shown from reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: CSE hits. Incidentally, it would not be difficult at all to write a Wiktionary entry for the unrelated Japanese term given the CSE hits and the many Google Books hits. --Gwern (contribs) 21:09 27 February 2011 (GMT)
• Move to Wiktionary - there seems enough to at least describe a term, but yea, I don't see enough for notability.陣内_Jinnai 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Question I've seen many of these over the years too but haven't found a reliable source, like a CNet review. Is this a type of software where it could be included as a brief entry in a list, with this as a redirect? TransUtopian (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, unless anyone can find some coverage in a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, Not Notable, Original Research. Agree that it should be in Wictionary. Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (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.