Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIRAT


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

VIRAT

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

One-year-old on-going research program DARPA. Non-notable; too early to tell if this will gain any traction. Text mainly came from the RFP document, hence reflecting the viewpoint of DOD program, and not in encyclopedic style. Vsion (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * weak delete it has multiple external sources and the technology will be definitely be notable if it works as envisaged. If it proves to be dead-end research then that wouldn't make it automatically non-notable either. As the nominator says though I think it's just a big too early to tell, and there isn't (afaict from a quick google) much concrete that can be encyclopaedically said about it. What tips this !vote to a delete is that the article as stands would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopaedic in style. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

That's in addition to the DARPA document, the Ars Technica article, and the SatNews story, which the article already has. Topic is notable and while any article could use some improvement, I'd hardly consider the tone unencyclopedic. In fact, I'd say keeping track of little-known areas like this is one of the strengths of Wikipedia's model. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here's another source: DARPA Contract Description Hints at Advanced Video Spying (Washington Post Oct 19 '08).


 * Keep. As the above editor mentioned -- there are already multiple external sources (including the Washington Post), so it definitely meets notability. I think deletion is totally unreasonable -- reason for deletion was non-notable, which has been shown to be untrue -- it would have been more appropriate to mark it as a stub and/or 'needs expansion' ... and I'd be glad to discuss suggestions for rewriting all or part of it on the article's talk page.Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (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.