Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheesehouse

Cheesehouse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Claims to be the second talker ever, yet no reliable source is provided to back it up. In fact, no reliable sources have been provided since the article was created back in late 2005. Sigh. Not that it really matters, but the original author of this article was banned a few years ago for abuse/vandalism... On second thought it might matter given the unsupported claims. JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The name of the talker is actually Cheeseplant's House, and as much as talker history is sourced anywhere, the claim is correct. It's properly referenced in other talker articles, including the Foothills article and the main article on Talkers. I'll try once again to find some sources for this. Kate (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please base your claims in policy. The link you cited, www.cheeseplant.org/~daniel, is not even REMOTELY qualified as a reliable source for encyclopedia usage. JBsupreme (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of that, which is why I said "I'll try once again to find some sources for this." Talker history is not well documented other than by the originators of the programs themselves, there are some .net articles from the mid-1990s but I've been so far unsuccessful in sourcing those. Kate (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, fair enough. If such sources can be located I have no qualms beyond that. JBsupreme (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nomination doesn't say its not notable, just that its poorly sourced, which i agree on.--Milowent (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to talkers article but this does seem to be a notable subject just needing clean-up and the right editor{s} to dig up where the history of talkers (whatever they are called universally or individually). This is true with the other noms in the subject area. -- Banjeboi 13:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without reliable sources, the subject is not notable. It has been 12 days since sources were promised and none have been forthcoming. Policy requires deletion. No prejudice to recreation if sources can be found. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far no reliable sources have been uncovered. The keeps have given no policy based arguments for there being an expectation that sources will be available (even if not readily available). Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The content of this article is factual. I'm a subject-matter expert. I'll provide more details within the next 24 hours.