Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasper

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, regardless of whether the nominator has been blocked there is still a strong consensus for deletion due to the lack of reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yasper

Orphaned since 2007, does not assert notability, is unreferneced, has one link, nn subject, OR issues Cholga^talK! 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nomCholga^talK! 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, third party sources are lacking and I can't find any.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand most of the text above, all jargon (eg I don't know wtf "HisSpaceResearch" or "OR issues" are supposed to mean) but I agree that Yasper isn't very notable. Personally I strongly disagree with the notability criterion, and the need for proof and references; it raises the bar too much, it keeps people like me who most of the time only have 15 minutes to write something from contributing to Wikipedia. Everything2 made the same mistake. Rp (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "OR issues" means that the person above thinks the page violates Wikipedia's prohibition against original research. "HisSpaceResearch" is the username of the person making the comment just above yours, just like yours is user:Rp. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk)
Speedy close. Nominator is indefinitely blocked as the sock puppet of a banned user. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the original nomination was in bad faith, others have opined in good faith in agreement with the nomination. This discussion is no longer eligible for early closure. Let the discussion continue. Rossami (talk)
Delete per my comment on the Afd talk page. ArcAngel (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too have failed to find any independent, reliable sources for this topic. Nor do I find any evidence that the subject meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria for products. While I sympathize with user:Rp's concern that we should not delete stubs prematurely, the history shows that this page sat essentially unexpanded since May 2005. The fact that no on has been able to find reliable sources in all that time suggests that sources probably do not exist. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.