Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TemplateMonster

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[TemplateMonster]]=

:{{la|TemplateMonster}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|TemplateMonster}})

Completing AFD nomination by User:Saqib Qayyum. On the merits, I am Neutral. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what's the exact reason for a AFD nomination is? The article does have references from the news; while scholar, books and images do not have sufficient data to be a reference for this article. Flowmaster.85 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:It's unclear. The editor added a WP:PROD template, but then switched it to a raw AFD template - which put it on the broken AFD list and drew my attention. Usually, I'd format the debate and they would come in and provide a rationale. Lacking a rationale, this would be a slam-dunk Keep. If I had to guess, I'd say that the raw timeline, and the fact that it takes up most of the article, could seem promotional. Some of the sources also appear to be primary (from TemplateMonster itself) or promotional (as with several press releases). When you remove those sources, notability seems quite thin. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::Delete per above. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 08:47, 22 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.