Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project E

: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The result was Nomination withdrawn with no other arguments for deletion broached. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Header fixed. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

=[[Project E]]=

:{{la|Project E}} ([{{fullurl:Project E|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project E}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I had originally suggested that this be speedy deleted as a potential hoax. I have listed it here instead since the creator is arguing on the talk page that it should not be deleted, thus I feel that a wider consensus is required. My rationale is that I could find no online references to the topic. I have not read the one reference cited within it, and am content to be convinced by decent short quotations from that reference that this is indeed a verifiable topic. If verifiable, is it notable?I suggest more than a cursory glance be given to this. If it is notable and verifiable then deleting it because there is solely one reference would be unencyclopaedic, too Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you try google books? There's a lot there. http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%22project+E%22+raf Juzhong (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)... even just google works
comment My initial inspection of Google found nothing related to the cold war in the first many [http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enGB291&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q='Project+E' Ghits]. If the article gets good sourcing I am happy to withdraw my deletion nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well frankly if you don't count a real book as good sourcing and you can't be bothered to find anything else, I'm happy to let you delete it. Let that be a lesson to any other potential contributors. Juzhong (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to indulge in language like that. If you feel the article can be improved with the references you have found, please improve it and thus save it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I created this article in good faith, as I have attempted to show on the talk page. If I am guilty of anything it's breaking any copyright on President Eisenhower's comment Soarhead77 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notable, The article does need Fleshing out however I think if the maker is given enough time, he can do that. XxGradiusheroxX Talk 12:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable the usual way. Unfamiliarity with the policy on verifiability and the advice on what to include on the nominator's part are not criteria for deletion. Wily D 14:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is notable, and a quick search gives me http://books.google.com/books?id=0CIXLdxhQMAC which mentions "project E". This is of course a separate book by a different author than that already cited in the article. I agree that the article needs fleshing out and in-line citations, including page numbers, but the subject is notable so the article deserves to be kept. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination. I see sufficient references now, albeit from a single source. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2008 (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.