Talk:EATPUT

Response to request for deletion

I tried sprucing the page up a bit with a graphic. It sounds like your big concern is that this doesn't qualify as "notable" per Wikipedia's policies. I read Wikipedia's page on that and their guidelines are very subjective. Obviously I do think it is notable, it is a little difficult to find online resources relating to EATPUT since it was originally developed in the 1960s and has been further honed since then.

A quick bing.com search of "EATPUT model" seems to indicate at least 3 or 4 universities who use EATPUT in their curriculum along with a few books mentioning EATPUT, just on the first page of results.

I could write more I guess, but is this not enough to make it notable? Mwv2 (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key indicators of notability for a model like this are independent citations in the research literature. I found about 20; this may be enough to demonstrate notability. I included two new sentences in the article to indicate that. A better approach would be to add several sentences with inline citations, like the second sentence that I added. The previous version of the article would probably attract more deletion recommendations, I believe.--Flavonoid (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on this page, I hadn't thought of google scholar. I think part of the problem is that because it is an older model, many of the works citing are also older, and do not yet have electronic versions.Mwv2 (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]