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 delete. east.718 at 00:01, December 29, 2007

Squirrel (eavesdropping)[edit]

While there are 4 listed sources on van Eck Phreaking (which has it's own article) not a single of these sources use the term "squirrel" anywhere. The entire first paragraph is unsourced (and the second paragraph is a long, seemingly off topic quote). Also, WP:NEO. Andrew c ^[talk] 13:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only thing new in this is the term "squirrel", which is unsourced and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article that doesn't list sources and one for which sources would be impossible are two different things. Only the latter should be deleted (WP:AFD). In general, only articles that cannot be improved should be nominated for deletion(WP:ATD). After "all attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP), the article can be nominated. Regarding WP:NEO, I did a Google search for squirrel and "van Eck Phreaking" together. Apparently, the term "squirrel" is already being used as it is in the article. Valerius (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, WP:NEO. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Human rights has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (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.