Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtomineerUtils


 * 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. JForget 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AtomineerUtils

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

no indication of notability per WP:GNG Jujutacular talkcontribs 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can someone please explain what criteria this page needs to meet to be retained? I have tried to follow the same format as for other similar pieces of software. Let me know what's wrong and I'll happily do what I can to adhere to whatever rule it is that I've broken?! Just deleting it out from under me without giving me a clue as to what I did wrong is not very helpful - I'll only continue to make pages that are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.84.66 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been given a clue twice. Read WP:N. 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to waste my time or yours re-submitting something until it achieves acceptability. Rather than clues, I was seeking some guidance - not on what is wrong with this page ("notability"), but what (if anything) could be done to gain approval. I'm not expecting a headline appearance on the BBC news any time soon, so what is a source you will find acceptable/realistic? How many references are needed to prove notability? Presumably I should add a references section and link to the sources (or should I post them here?) e.g. Is this a notable source: [] (search for Jason Williams - it's mentioned about half way down). Or this? []. Thanks, and apologies if I'm wasting your time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.158.100 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Notability is generally established by demsontrating that this subject (in this case AtomineerUtils) has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. In the links you provided, we have somebody's personal page (nota reliable source), and a directory entry on MSDN (reliable, but doesn't really establish notability as there is no indication of rigorous editorial oversight in the coverage).
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Not notable: lacks significant coverage in RSes. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2009 (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.