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. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recom[edit]

Recom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Old nom failed for obvious reason. However, I believe this article does not meet our notability guidelines. I have nothing against Recom; I am a member myself. Nevertheless, I cannot find any independent sources to verify the claims made by the article, and most of the Google hits are irrelevant. The Alexa rank is not convincing either. On the balance, considering the article makes unverifiable claims (we don't have independent sources to back them up), and without these claims the article would clearly not be notable, I believe the article should not be included at the moment. (And IIRC, the original nominator was a co-founder of Recom...) Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above.– Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 09:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. __earth ^(Talk) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nil Einne 13:20, 20 January 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.