The result was Delete To avoid conflicts of interest and self-referencing, other wikipedias are not considered notable merely because of kinship with this project. No other evidence presented, and consensus is clear. Xoloz 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has no third-party sources. Without third party sources, it's unverifiable. It contains no claim to notability under the relevant standard. What content there is seems to be some sort of auto-generated stub (judging by the close similarity in format to other articles on wikipedias). Being a wikipedia does not except it from our normal policies and guidelines on what merits inclusion. deranged bulbasaur 21:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete To avoid conflicts of interest and self-referencing, other wikipedias are not considered notable merely because of kinship with this project. No other evidence presented, and consensus is clear. Xoloz 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has no third-party sources. Without third party sources, it's unverifiable. It contains no claim to notability under the relevant standard. What content there is seems to be some sort of auto-generated stub (judging by the close similarity in format to other articles on wikipedias). Being a wikipedia does not except it from our normal policies and guidelines on what merits inclusion. deranged bulbasaur 21:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply