- 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Proposed for deletion shortly after creation, with concerns about notability, advertising and suitability of content. However, the article as it now stands is fairly well-referenced, well-written and at least attempts to provide some assertion of notability, so I thought a longer discussion is merited. Procedural nomination. – Riana ऋ 03:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has many references, but most of them do not qualify as WP:RS. YechielMan 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of sources not related to the site. Would change to Keep if more external, independent sources were found. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with Matthew Brown on this point. Because the article is well written, I think a certain amount of extra time is warranted to allow editors to add independent confirmation of notability, the only thing keeping it from a Keep --Myke Cuthbert 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per nomination, but potentially a good article. Jmlk17 04:05, 30 April 2007 (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.