Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techimo

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Techimo
Non-notable forum, vanity. RickK 06:51, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete as promotional material unless rewritten. They do get 250,000 google hits though. Kappa 12:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Marginal entry extensively updated to improve clarity. HeavyMetal 10:00AM, Mar 3, 2005 (EST)
 * As a member of the site being featured in this entry, I do have an interest in improving the description to clarify the unique status of my favorite online community. Another site member apparently created the original entry, though the entry did little to describe the site in question. I have extensively updated the entry to better explain the background history of the site. I hope this weighs heavily when considering the potential deletion of this entry. Also posted by HeavyMetal, recovered from history
 * Delete. To make it over my notability bar, a tech advice message board will have to do better than ranking 35,000 on Alexa; this is a very personal bar that changes based on subject matter, but popular web sites of this particular variety tend to be in the top 10,000 (and I would set the bar somewhat higher, personally). Also, despite all of the mentions of techimo.com on Google, only one site actually includes a link; I find that a bit odd for an allegedly popular site. HyperZonktalk 17:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough notablility. Zzyzx11 18:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Borderline delete - would like independent verifiability - currently looks like ad/vanity, even after revision - David Gerard 16:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)