Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Electron Forum


 * 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Advanced Electron Forum

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability guidelines and web guidelines, no independent, non-trivial coverage to show notability. Google news shows nothing and a Google search throws up nothing source-worthy. Naerii 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed, and can understand. This article was the first one that I started and at the time. I understood that there was a chance it might be nominated for deletion (which was why I was so paranoid about it at first) since becoming an active part of Wikipedia I have learned quite a bit about what the standards on such a thing are. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 15:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB with a perfect score. 9Nak (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should make it clear that this article is not about a website but instead is about a software platform. I still feel it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion yet (and most likely never will) but all the same it should be judged as an article about software and not about a single website. It should not be deleted because it fails the standards of WP:WEB. Instead it should be deleted because it fails to meet the requirements of WP:R and WP:N. Either way I agree that it should be deleted. All the same, the reason I feel this is important to mention is because in the future the subject may become notable and a deletion now based on the wrong standards could hurt it's ability to be covered in the future %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You know, this makes me feel they should have a wikipedia:timebox for articles already written on non-notable subjects which might be notable so people don't have to rewrite from scratch. But they probably already have something like that. Anyway, I agree this should be deleted. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per notability. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:R & WP:Note (I figure I should put in an official vote here| btw, that's a good idea Noian) %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I just wanted to mention that I am currently working with the people involved in the development of AEF about a possible reference. I havent seen the article myself yet, but appearantly a magazine called Thinkdigit published something about the software. I am asking the people of the community that uses and works with the software to try to give me specific info and quotes that I could work with in the article. My hope is that they can get me this info before the article gets deleted, in case it helps the discussion any. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately, there is no real WP:SOFTWARE any more and it ultimately leads to WP:COMPANY. We have to go by general WP:N and I feel that it has not passed into the area of "encyclopedic".--Pmedema (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (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.