Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jelix

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. v/r - T P 23:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jelix[edit]

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

sources are not reliable, falls short of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my search revealed some coverage in blogs and forums, but no reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I Ask you what reliable (kind of) sources : do we have to provide or do you need ; to avoid this deletion ? -Foxmask (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Read notability to understand the criteria on what is and isn't notable, then WP:RS sets the basic guidelines for what is and is not an acceptable reliable source. A short (but not complete) interpretation would say that virtually all blogs, all forums, all self published sites are not "reliable" for our purposes. The New York Times, books that have been reviewed by major sources, national news, etc. are reliable sources. Or my own silly test: If a website told you "The world is ending" and you believed them with no other information, that might be a reliable source. If you went to a bigger source of news to find out if it is true, then that bigger source is reliable, but the other one isn't. Reliable sources are those that are professionally vetted by multiple people, not personal projects. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

like all the sources I have given you, you have removed them, i dont see any other solution that dropping the article - thus we wont loose more time - kind of regards--Foxmask (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they were self published websites. I gave you links above to read, about what is and isn't a reliable source. If it doesn't meet that criteria, it will get reverted back. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable third-party sources. Promotional tone. Tigerboy1966 01:34, 12 March 2012 (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.