- 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 01:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fastpencil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article that lacks reliable sources, written in a spam-mode, and one that would quickly fail WP:CORP; a "weak claim of importance" lacks consistency —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete couldn't find any third party coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this article was created by a WP:SPA. It fails notability. The references are somewhat disturbing - including a cite that links to a secured login page. I really don't see the encyclopedic value of an article like this. Groink (talk) 03:23, 26 July 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.