Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
It's very simple.  requires multiple sources that are not trivial in amount of coverage. There are three independent sources of potentially non-trivial information cited at this article. One of them is behind a $10 subscription wall. The other two meet the  description of trivial amount: ''a brief summary of the nature of the content''. Every other argument amounts smoke blowing, contrary to AfD deletion policy as described at #Rough Consensus, and that guideline instructs closing admins to discount !votes contrary to Wikipedia standards, logic or the facts. Do we follow the notability guidelines or not? Do we have a single standard for both the articles/subjects we like and the one's we don't? Anyone voting differently here than at the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD should really think about explaining the difference, because there's a rotton stench of hypocrisy in the air (there ''can'' be reasons for voting differently -- for instance, there are more sources cited there than here -- but if you don't explain them, it looks like hypocrisy). The information can be moved into Wikipedia space, as Ned Scott suggested above (timestamp 04:44, 16 May), which is where non-notable subjects of interest to Wikipedians belong
— User:Noroton, 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:WEB||WP:DGFA (Wikipedia:Notability)