Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberspace Communications (2nd nomination)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberspace Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria of either WP:WEB or WP:ORG Tan | 39 01:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The free speech case that Cyberspace was involved with is not obscure, and is widely cited. N. Harmon (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any verifiability of that? There is no sourcing in the article that shows that this is "widely cited". Tan | 39 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article looks like navel gazing by the Grex community. Zero hits in Google News,[1] only brief snippets mentioning them in Google Books. I will change my assessment as soon as significant coverage appearing in multiple reliable sources is shown. Fences&Windows 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable -- no real mentions in news or books despite some of the claims in the article. Also, I don't think the COPA mentioned in the article (a MI statute) is the same COPA that most people will think of (federal statute). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no apparent notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2009 (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.