Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rulers.org (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 11:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers.org[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy software notability or general notability. Purely a description of the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems somewhat WP:N. Should be given a chance. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not reliably sourced as notable — one of the two "references" is to itself, but you don't make a thing notable by metasourcing it to its own existence, and the other reference is to the Google Books profile of a book about the general phenomenon of name-matching databases, offering no way to verify whether this particular database is the subject of enough content in that book to count for anything toward meeting WP:GNG — and even if it is, it still takes more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. So no, this sourcing simply isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
about 69 articles in wikipedia.en refer to this database mostly as a source Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. --Grad wits (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2018 (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.