Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singularity Institute


 * 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. While the majority of commentators (3-1) believe this article should be kept, my call is based at least as strongly on the fact this article does address the question, "Is this subject notable?" Reading the article, I felt that this organization was a significant player in its field. However, I want to echo the comment made by many in this discussion that this article needs more work, especially reliable sources; if this article is nominated again & it has not been improved as noted below, the next Admin may rule differently from me. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Singularity Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very undersourced, somewhat promotional. Article has been around since 2003 and is still in dire shape. An IP tried to nominate this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article may not have been improved a lot in recent times, but the topic seems to be notable. The article already cites a San Francisco Chronicle story about a program it sponsored. Also, in a quick Google search, I found a recent National Public Radio story about the institute and its work: . I haven't added that reference to the article because I don't have a clear enough understanding of the article and subject matter to do a quick add, but it's there for someone else to use. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Undersourced is not the same as notable :¬) There are these news items and these book references  Chaosdruid (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not nearly notable enough, well outside the realm of mainstream research on the topic, and article does seem to stink of self-promotion. DaveWF (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE, responsibility for which would seem to migrate to the person taking over a nomination. See Google News hits. Anarchangel (talk) 01:43, 13 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.