Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide
Essay, use of Wikipedia as a personal web host Wuh  Wuz  Dat  16:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Well, perhaps it would have been best to wait till the article is finished before commenting. QUESTION 1: How do I indicate that it is now finished as a first draft? QUESTION 2: How can I indicate that I do not want this version deleted (days ago I requested that it be deleted, but because nothing happened, I continued to work on it. Maxwyss (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss
 * Keep. Looks like a fairly creadible draft of an article, not a personal essay. To move to mainspace it needs better sourcing and for the more essay-like bits to be toned down, but these things can be fixed by normal editing and there's some decent material there. Reyk  YO!  21:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you only waited 15 minutes before removing the speedy tag. Sometimes if there's a lot of articles tagged for speedy deletion and not many admins on line it can take a while longer. I've had blatant copyvios languishing for hours so big backlogs can and do happen. Reyk  YO!  12:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep at least for now. The author has raised this at WP:REFUND and while I have no opinion on it's potential, deleting it now would only discourage a new editor, who also seems to know how to tag it once more for deletion if it doesn't become an article. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is not going to be an article in anything like this form, because it's a classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS - drawing existing facts together to establish a new conclusion - which is expressly excluded by WP:No original research: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It also goes rather against Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. It's good stuff and should be published, but that needs a journal of some kind, not an encyclopedia. So why am I saying keep? Well, as Tikiwont says, let's not discourage a new contributor, and there may be some way (though I don't immediately see how) to extract an article from it. JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I have "moved" the page (changed its name) to keep up with a change of username, and to fix the capitalisation. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This could be a mainspace article some day. I suspect that much of the material is verifiable. The "conclusion" section would need to go of course, and the other instances of synthesis, but there is potentially a valuable article here, and it certainly isn't hurting anyone as a userspace draft. Thparkth (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The hurdle for getting this into mainspace will be seeing how much of what may or may not be synthesis is actually in the provided but unfootnoted sources. But even if even one section turns into a policy-compliant article some day, it will be of signficant value. --joe deckertalk to me 15:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:SYNTH would requite that none of this is already implicitly stated in any reliable sources which does not appear to be the case. It seems most likely that much of this can be sourced adequately given time.AerobicFox (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think that this requires that much to become a really good article, the main issues are related to style in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 11:59, 26 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.