Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipMe

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 speedy keep. Nominator banned, only delete !vote struck. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FlipMe[edit]

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

~~Spam, advertising, promotional, non notable, no significant coverage in secondary literature. And I do mean literature, not some neighbourhood rag.~~ Frank Fascarelli (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, as article fails notability criteria for web sites. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann. His signature style is to create a new account because we have not banned his IP address and nominate articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is multiple coverage from reliable sources, which seem to satisfy the criteria for WP:GNG and WP:N as a whole. Silver seren^C 04:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Originally I thought the nominator just favored m:delisionist over m:inclusionist but it is obvious now that he is just a sock spoiling for a conflict with RAN. Easily meets GNG with significant coverage and the nominator should feel bad. Armburst also needs to look into GNG.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2010 (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.