Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abjects

: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. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

=[[Abjects]]=

:{{la|Abjects}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Abjects}})

Delete. Interesting, but notability is not inherited, even by chat networks used by racists. The sourcing in this article boils down to primary sources published by the chat network operators and a tangential court case. JBsupreme (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the interesting parts are in Hal Turner. Miami33139 (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

15px Delete — Web content without signifigant notability, imho. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Only thing possibly of note is the lawsuit, but I don't see how that even qualifies as a significant event. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Technical details about the website are outside the scope of Wikipedia. The lawsuit is covered at Hal Turner, and the Abjects article goes into too much depth on it anyway. Getting rid of those two things, there is nothing left to the article. — æk ^Talk 11:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (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.