Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX (3rd 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

LX/LuelinX
Not notible, possible spam since article was created by software author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toad king (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no real reason for this to be up here. It's not well known, and the administrator of the site added it himself. GR 00:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The article only serves as personal entry for the software creator to advertise his software. --Dem 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Was never even tested on a 10,000 person userbase, many other poitns in the article are assumptions and self promotions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.23.120 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All users who are trying to get this article deleted are from LUElinks, and I'm sure the admins remember that bit of fun with the LUElinks article. Many are vandals, and many should be banned more often for their constant vandalism. -Matt 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but this isn't about the LUElinks article or the status of the users discussing this. I'm sure the Wikipedia admins will take care of those issues. This is about the LX/LuelinX article and whether it should or should not be on Wikipedia. Toad King 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The same people (from LL) are the ones who keep putting this in AfD. -Matt 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Previous debates:
 * Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX
 * Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX 2


 * Delete - I don't see what makes notable nor do I see any reliable secondary sources. Am I missing something?  It looks like it hasn't even been fully released yet.  Wickethewok 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an ad for a non-notable web forum. Also, the last AfD should not have closed as no consensus, as one of the keep votes was made by a vandal. There was consensus to delete otherwise. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. By the article itself, this forum isn't feature-complete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It seems non-notable besides, as it fails most of the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE. --FreelanceWizard 10:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- forum spam. SB_Johnny  | talk 12:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. michael <span
 * Delete nn. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:44, 6 August 2006 (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.