Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frappr (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Adam Cuerden talk 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Frappr

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Result of last AfD was "keep, stubify, cleanup to remove "advert-ishness", and reference.". Total number of references added since then: zero. Cleanup tagged since January; total substantive changes since January: none. One spelling fix, two meta-maintenance. Seems that as long as we carry their directory entry, nobody cares enough to actually provide any evidence of verifiable content, or references from which we can establish neutrality and assure ourselves that the article does not contain original research. The originator and main editor has not edited since December 2006. It is hard to escape the conclusion that nobody actually cares about this subject. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article is WP:SPAM and fails WP:WEB.--Evb-wiki 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick glance at Google News proves WP:N (see for starters), WP:RS are easily found. How does this fail WP:WEB? Poor article at the moment, but this in itself is not a reason to delete. Xarr  &#9742;  15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers . . . ." from WP:NOT#INFO and quoted at Notability (web). Also fails WP:Attribution. --Evb-wiki 15:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is going nowhere. WP:WEB/WP:SPAM/WP:NOT - take your pick.  /Blaxthos 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn (checked Google news). JJL 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not quite spam, but not notable enough and WP:NOT applies.  Adrian  M. H.  17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's obviously non-notable. I've heard of it, but that don't make it notable. The lack of sources and lack of improvement since the last AfDs are telling. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite literally something made up at (after) school, however media coverage would appear to statisfy notability. --Infrangible 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep minimal sources, but you don't need massive amounts, remember? I've heard of this, many times. When I saw this AfD, my reaction was "wtf" - I couldn't believe this was nominated, it's very, very, notable. G1  gg  y  !  Review me! 05:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not just about notability, though, is it? If it is notable, please demonstrate it, but WP:NOT still applies.  Adrian  M. H.  16:08, 5 June 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.
 * 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.