Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraline (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Fraline}} ([{{fullurl:Fraline|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraline (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Second nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fraline for the old AFD discussion. Not notable as there does not seem to be any signifant coverage in secondary sources. Google news returns 30 hits for Fraline, all of them neither related to the project or press releases by the project. Searching local newspapers, i.e. Frankfurter Rundschau, Frankfurter Neue Presse and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung returns zero hits at the [http://www.faz.net/f30/common/Suchergebnis.aspx?term=fraline&allchk=1 Frankfurter Allgemeine], [http://www.fnp.de/fnp/leserservice/archiv/archiv.php?fvt=fraline Frankfurter Neue Presse] and one hit at the [http://www.fr-online.de/suche/?such=fraline Rundschau]. But even the Rundschau mentions Fraline only in [http://www.fr-online.de/frankfurt_und_hessen/campus/?em_cnt=1331322& passing] as the article is about the institutions in general and only mentions that Fraline is one of their projects, effectively one sentence only ("Besondere Unterstützung an der Hochschule erhalten zudem das Computer-Projekt Fraline, an dem auch die Frankfurter Schulen beteiligt sind, und eine Studie über Materialwissenschaften."). Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing has changed in the three days since the first AfD was closed - this is an innovative initiative between a local authority and a university. TerriersFan (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Голубое сало doesn't claim that is not the case. He's saying no reliable sources exist to sustain the article that don't mention the project in more than just passing. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Close. I totally agree with the nomination, but AFDs aren't supposed to be repeated less than a week after they last closed. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I completely agree with the nomination, and have still to see significant coverage in a reliable source, but we aren't discussing articles until there is consensus for deletion. Give it a couple of months. --Amalthea^Talk 01:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:*BlueSalo, if you are really that unhappy with the article, start a deletion review and argue that rough consensus was, in absence of a clear show of notability, to delete. --Amalthea^Talk 01:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Close as DISRUPTIVE The last AFD closed THREE DAYS prior to this. SashaNein (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:* DISRUPTIVE, really? Is there anything frivolous about my argument that there is no coverage in reliable sources? It is not that I am relisting an AfD that ended with a clear keep. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:**Yes, disruptive. Please go edit some other aritcle and at least attempt to let this article. After the 1st AFD discussion that was closed as no consensus, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraline&diff=249469041&oldid=248921339 turned the article into a redirect anyway], deliberately and directly ignoring the AFD discussion's result. You fit the very definition of disruption on Wikipedia. SashaNein (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:*** Well, civility is apparently not your strength, but at least you seem to be successful in driving out "disruptive" editors from the project. Novidmarana (talk) User:Novidmarana is a sockpuppet of User:BlueSalo. For further details, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo

:*** Not to mention typing in all caps and boldface and hurling personal insults are also considered disruptive. Please AGF and be more civil next time. MuZemike (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:**** I will try to be 'nicer' in the future, but with the clear series of events - 1) User nominates article for deletion, deletion fails, 2) Immediately afterwards, user defies the AFD result and turns the article into a redirect, 3) After being reverted, user immediately renominates the article for deletion, three days after the previous AFD close - AGF has ended for ths content dispute. The user 'retired' only because he/she was called out on it. AGF does not ask anyone to play ignorant after two huge red flags. I apologize for allegedly making this user 'retire'. SashaNein (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no secondary sources that establish notability, and I couldn't care less whether the last afd was a day or a year ago. Articles about non-notable subjects (and that sound more like an advertisement) should have no place in an encyclopaedia, and building an encyclopaedia is what we should be here for. Novidmarana (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC) User:Novidmarana is a sockpuppet of User:BlueSalo. For further details, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo
• Comment Let's remember the earlier close was no-consensus. If it had been a keep, then this nomination would indeed be disruptive. But it wasn't, and it isn't. It was merely ill-judged. After a nonconsensus, unless something additional should be discovered, it is usually wise to wait a month or so before the next one, as this increases the likelihood of actually settling the matter one way or another. DGG (talk) 01:36, 6 November 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.