Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoHomers.net
I think this just barely makes it under the wire of  (if the claims of commentary on dvd and other evidentiary claims supporting notability are true). I note that if you parse the language of the  section, a case can be made for both keep and delete. Criterion: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Is the DVD commentary a fit? First we have to look at all claims and decide whether that's "multiple." Fairly easy to say the DVD is non-trivial. But does ''mention'' in the dvd render nohomer "the subject" of this published work? I would say no. As stated in the exclusion section immediately following, this does not include "a brief summary of the nature of the content." I vote weak keep because of the (possibly trivial brief summary)  mention of nohomer, but nevertheless in apparently ''multiple''  non-trivial published works
— User:Fuhghettaboutit, 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Notability)