Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeaBios
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 16:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not meet WP:CORP. Not notable. Sleepyhead 15:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to that:
- cartography and astronomy meet first criteria
- about reliability: all the content (maps, satellite images, aerial photos, positions of the stars, planets, eclipses, tide tables, weather, ...) are calculated, tested and/or compared with other sources or retrieved from reliable sources (sources are listed).
- the data are reproduced daily by independent newspaper (astronomy and geolocated news) and independent radio stations free of charge (in Slovenia)
- Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia quote service on publications ([1]), European Commision ([2])
- Go to Bora Bora or Tahiti, click on coordinates, and find the location on the maps of different external sources (that's just a simple test of reliability, you don't need to zoom in). I can find my car on my backyard on Slovenian maps, too.
- External source for maps for different independent web services, like: [3] - mineralogy and mines (worldwide), [4] - doctors, hospitals, ... in Slovenia, ...
- Find Your Research and Development Partner in Slovenia in the year 2001 (10.000 CD + Internet application - maps online) for Ministry of education, science and sport and "Slovenian Business and Research Association" (Brussels) - parallel search over online sources - online spyder + RIA (patents,locations,products,development issues) running still (free of charge).
- website won first price as The best domestic product in the year 1999 (independent newspaper Monitor)
- why: interactive 2d/3d over Internet in the year 1999 (like Google Earth, but only for Slovenia) - it was removed in the year 2001 because of support of MS IE only (criticism of NS users)
- website is independent (participants are coming mostly from Slovenia, but New Zealand, US, GB, Germany, Switzerland, Croatia, also)
- And the most important is that the web site meets The Technical Excellency and Educational Purpose, specially because all the applications (RIA) and data are inter related.
- Google hits between 30.000 and 65.000 (time dependent), Yahoo hits more than 80.000, Alexa is not relevant for RIA (one and only one page, and people don't like spyware)
- I can't vote, but I wrote reasons for. MaNeMeBasat 08:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I made changes, so I think there is no advertising tone (but I'm not a native speaker:-) --MaNeMeBasat 14:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Could use some reworking to avoid the advertising-y tone that's there now, but I don't know how well Slovenia is represented in English Google, etc. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathphoenix 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unless someone wants to refute the content, I think the article makes a case for notability in terms of uniqueness and early use of technology which is certainly popular today (world mapping). The EC case study certainly meets point #1 of WP:WEB. -Jcbarr 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per above. It needs reworking by other editors to further remove the marketing angle though. Sulfur 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Revised to omit marketing angle. Francl 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: old manuals still exist on the net [5] --MaNeMeBasat 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.