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 no consensus. MBisanztalk 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of substantial independent coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Makes claims that are not backed up but there are numerous sources out there (as well as a lot of WP articles reference it). Once we get those in there I think the article is keepable. Valley2city‽ 20:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has WP:COI problems, but it is definately notable. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (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.