Revision as of 15:01, 19 December 2011 edit Kvng (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers 116,060 edits new refs look good. why are they not WP:RS? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:05, 19 December 2011 edit undo SL93 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors 83,548 edits *'''Comment''': The first reference is not independent of the subject. The second reference is a download page. The third reference is unreliable. The fourth reference is a download page. How does that show notability? ~~~~ Next edit →
Line 20: :Please sign Your comments! — [[User:Czarkoff\|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[User talk:Czarkoff\|talk]]) 17:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC) ::No, there doesn't need to be an official book. The general notability guideline is explained pretty simply in this essay: [[WP:42]]. – [[User:Pnm\|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm\|talk]]) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC) *'''Comment''': The first reference is not independent of the subject. The second reference is a download page. The third reference is unreliable. The fourth reference is a download page. How does that show notability? [[User:SL93\|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93\|talk]]) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphics Layout Engine: Difference between revisions