Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zelune

Zelune (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject does not seem to meet the notability guideline for web content; with a seeming lack of established, reputable sources available. In particular, recent upheaval in the article content has made it clear that the subject is not something that can be reasonably covered while still adhering to content policies. Dancter 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per good arguments above. Jakew 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be well known in the proxy world, here are some usage stats I found with a simple GIS. Fosnez 11:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is not whether the subject should be covered, but whether it can be. Straight from the notability guideline page: the concept of notability "is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'". Verifiability is a firm policy, regardless, and I cannot find suitable sources for the bulk of claims in the article. Dancter 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 August 2007
  • Note: Both of the primary content contributors have an apparent conflict of interest with respect to the subject, editing the article so that their own websites feature prominently. Despite the large number of web search results, depth of coverage by reliable sources seems to be severely lacking, and thus not fulfilling the general notability guideline, and more importantly, verifiability policy. Dancter 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to my conflict of interest, I encourage someone to research the script themselves, and you can verify all of the claims. Raithesoft 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, no assertion of notability, not referenced --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no references, no real claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable, non-notable. /Blaxthos 13:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
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.