The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. An admin told me that the article does not meet csd-g4. Schuym1 ( talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply
(Restart) To quote:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
See also: General Notability Guideline for a breakdown of the schematics. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply
And you clearly don't understand what notability is. It is not your personal, subjective, estimation of what is important, famous, groundbreaking, or significant in the world. It is Wikipedia:Notability, and it is not subjective. It is not based upon size, significance, popularity, usage, or fame. It is based upon sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G ( talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. An admin told me that the article does not meet csd-g4. Schuym1 ( talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply
(Restart) To quote:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
See also: General Notability Guideline for a breakdown of the schematics. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply
And you clearly don't understand what notability is. It is not your personal, subjective, estimation of what is important, famous, groundbreaking, or significant in the world. It is Wikipedia:Notability, and it is not subjective. It is not based upon size, significance, popularity, usage, or fame. It is based upon sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G ( talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply