Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawley Framework
- 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. Wifione Message 08:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crawley Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable, published sources so article is unverifiable and does not meet our general notability guidelines. Contested prod, so bringing to AfD. Sparthorse (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, no independent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (agree - non-notable content provided by WP:SPA) TEDickey (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think it's an informative article that shouldn't be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmg.utn (talk • contribs)
- I doubt anyone disagrees that it is informative. The question is whether it is notable WP:GNG. There is no evidence of that. If you have some, now's the time to show it (and to edit the article). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2011 (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.