This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 April 21. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Even though this AfD was started by a banned user, the subject simply does not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Three of the "keep" !votes are based on the (inadequate) sourcing, while RAN's was WP:WAX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Original research, go-bots spamcruft, non notable, fails GNG, fails pretty much all civilised standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 April 21. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Even though this AfD was started by a banned user, the subject simply does not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Three of the "keep" !votes are based on the (inadequate) sourcing, while RAN's was WP:WAX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Original research, go-bots spamcruft, non notable, fails GNG, fails pretty much all civilised standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply