Deletion of List of quote databases

Comment: This comparison article could not be classified as a |linkfarm as it contains no external links and no internal links that fit the "linkfarm" definition
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM)

Comment: This article is a Wikipedia:Lists|list article, not a standalone topic-article. The Wikipedia:Notability|notability guideline does not limit the ''content'' of articles.  states: ''"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a '''topic''' is for '''its own article'''. They '''do not''' directly limit the '''content''' of articles."'' The nom clearly does not understand that list-type articles are handled differently than standalone articles.Moreover, as pointed out above, the nom has a clear bias/COI when it comes to '''competing''' articles due to his involvement with bash.org. Rather than add say a {{tl|refimprove}} template so someone could deal with any potential ref issues and address any  concerns he might have, and instead of following , he decided to just prod and AfD with a laundry list of guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297885954 in hopes that something would stick. He also prodded this article after it had already been prodded once before, which is a violation of the  policy. The first prod was on 2009-05-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=289476128 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=289579526 and the second prod was on 2009-06-22 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297885954 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_quote_databases&diff=prev&oldid=297893623Contrary to the above comment, I don't see where this comparison list article ''"falls afoul of OT"'', and although the information included is very much Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable, I do agree that some of the refs need improvement. That however is an editorial issue that should be addressed per  and is not a valid reason for wholesale deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:BEFORE||WP:PROD||WP:NOT||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: some obvious |canvassing going on here... //USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: No evidence that the concept of quote database is notable enough to merit listing them in an article; neither are the websites so listed individually notable and thus worth listing.  Seems to fail the basic guidelines of  on both of these counts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: I can find no evidence that "quote databases" (in the sense used in this list, as opposed to the sense of databases of price quotations for stocks or other financial instruments) meets the requirements of  through treatment in |reliable sources. If the underlying topic is not notable, a list of individual instances also fails the requirements for WP inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: Trivial, falls afoul of  in a couple cases, and a list in an encyclopedia needs to be encyclopedic- I don't see any sources for those management figures, or any of the assertions about anything else. Being a list doesn't magically exempt you from sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)