Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SeaTwirl


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

SeaTwirl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This product does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. The single GNews hit is a blog, and I do not see significant coverage in secondary sources elsewhere on the web. The article was previously deleted via a PROD for notability reasons. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Prototype testing version, no evidence of notability. None of the sources is independent. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per aforementioned notability issues.--E8 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've rewritten the article to make notability clearer as well as to provide more information on what makes the design distinctive. I found several sources using the Kvasir search engine (although I left out the spectrum.ieee blog entry and several derivative articles), and the article already cited one good independent source, the CleanEnergy one. There are now more references, and at least half are independent (more than half if Chambers University counts as independent, as I think it does). It would be nice to have some news hits, but in my estimation it now meets the standard of coverage for notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work! Ample coverage in Sweden.   D r e a m Focus  18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources found proving adequate coverages.  D r e a m Focus  18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the rescue effort has succeeded, nice work there, Yngvadottir! Interesting sources in Swedish ;) too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Keep There are reliable sources. Excellent rescuing! → Σ ⚑   ☭  07:12, 5 October 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.