Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination)
Just about every above reason to keep is invalid and based on either 'I like it', or 'it's been nomninated before!!!'.  The topic lacks any evidence of notability, lacking multiple non-trivial references as per .  The hand-wringing about 'oh my god, it's been nominated before!! RECENTLY!! are irrelevant.  Two months ago is not particularly recent when the article is so fundamentally lacking in evidence for its assertions of notability, and voting 'keep' on procedural grounds because of this is disruptive, and ignorant of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability (see that little message at the bottom of the editing window?) The article was only restored at DRV because DRV is a purely head-counting exercise, so is easily subverted, and this has some very dedicated people who want it kept regardless of basic fundamental |policy
— User:Proto, 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:WEB||WP:V (Wikipedia:Notability)