Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Repertory Project


 * 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. Consensus is that WP:WEB is not met.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wind Repertory Project

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

Website which fails any fair test of notability, be it WP:WEB or WP:N. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article cites one source which seems to be reliable. The article also does no harm to anyone and might be useful to a few. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please see WP:HARMLESS the only non-primary source cited is a blog, http://www.musicedmagic.com/blogtales-from-the-podium/the-wind-repertory-project.html which does not meet our guideline for reliable sources.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it sounds interesting, but not yet notable. No evidence it's had any reliable coverage anywhere. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I swear that there was a speedy deletion criteria for websites like this, but can't seem to find it.  (jarbarf) (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources and this site is less than 4 months old. How could it possibly achieve notability in such a small time? So delete per WP:Notability. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  03:59, 26 May 2008 (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.