Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queef Fraiche


 * 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. L Faraone  05:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Queef Fraiche
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:N, no notability...the "references" are all links to wikipedia pages that do not mention anything about the article. The author removed the proposal for deletion without discusion. Passionless (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete minimal notability, nothing more than passing references and very brief reviews. -- Jayron  32  03:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:N. A three-sentence review and a forum discussions with one user - apparently connected - posting one line do not make sufficient notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me how I can make this more notable? I have references to market places, other applications like it, forum and non-forum links, loop backs to wiki pages. I'm not quite sure why you don't believe this is notable? Please provide information on why the external links to the market places, etc are not notable and I will correct the article. But I need specifics since your reason for sighting that this is not notable is very generic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnacules (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Also please tell me why the Zune Marketplace, W7App's and WindowsMarketplace are not good published sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnacules (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Barnacules:It's not the quality of the sources in this case, its the depth of the coverage. While some of your sources may count as "reliable", there's just not enough material in those reliable sources to clear the minimal thresholds set out at WP:GNG.  -- Jayron  32  03:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A listing in a marketplace database conveys merely that the product exists; if that were sufficient for notability, we'd all be notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and points made above. Dismas |(talk) 03:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Online stores merely prove it exists. Existence is not notability. The existence of similar items does nothing to imply notability. Forums are not reliable sources. Blogs without editorial oversight are not reliable sources. Other wikis are not reliable sources. Searches return nothing notable: a couple of blogs and forums. » scoops “ 5x5  „ 18:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - per nom: none of the sources demonstrate notability as required by the WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (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.