Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniLang (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. No good sources Peacent 04:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UniLang[edit]

The article does not assert the subject's notability (WP:CSD#A7, however it has survived an AfD before, with no subsequent improvement). Article has peacock terms and reads almost as an advertisement. Article cites zero sources, and appears to be original research. I tagged it needing serious work over a week ago and nobody seemed to take notice. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Looking at the UniLang site, it doesn't seem impossible someone will come up with a good argument for its notability. Agreed it needs a great deal of work. Barnabypage 20:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Discussed briefly by a couple of reliable sources: [1] [2] JulesH 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those two refs are not "non-trivial" in their treatment of the subject, the first in particular. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources listed above are pretty trivial (brief mentions). No independent sources failing WP:RS/WP:ATT. If the site was that significant, seems like Googling would provide some relevant sources, but I haven't found any. Last debate was terrible with arguments like "The site exists and is verifiable", "Nearly 3,000 forum members", and "nn." Wickethewok 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When an article looks a bit promotional, like this one, you'd think the promoters should take care of it and make it good. The article has stayed in almost the exact same state since January, 2004! There is no trend of improvement, and there are no reliable sources. We are not protecting a fragile flower that has no friends, so we should hold it to our usual standards. We should expect to see third-party coverage for something that's been around so long, if it's truly notable. EdJohnston 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources in the article, and the new ones discussed above don't stand up to scrutiny. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 8 June 2007 (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.