Closed as no consensus, but from this vantagepoint there does not appear to be any establishment of notability or reliable third party sources in which to base an article. In quick discussion with the closing admin, considerable weight was given to one keep argument that was based on also-poor sources based on an argument that we should keep the article to help keep tabs on a specific point of view. Clearly, I disagree or I would not be here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close As accurately reflecting consensus. The final delete !vote was not policy based either. There's a high hurdle to overturn a no consensus close to either keep or delete, and I can't see it being met. No prejudice against renomination, but the thing simply didn't appear to attract enough attention, after TWO relistings, to really call the debate well-represented. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall any instance in which DRV has ever overturned a "no consensus" close. (Can anyone else?) Although I don't think we'll overturn Xymmax's close in this case, if you have some reason to think a fresh debate might reach a more definite conclusion we shouldn't stand in your way. I think the best outcome is "endorse" but perhaps the DRV closer would consider saying explicitly that speedy renomination is permitted.—S MarshallT/C22:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
