Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object graphical web Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Object_graphical_web

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 delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Object graphical web

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by an account associated with the developer of the software it discusses (early drafts of the article, as well as the blogspot page it links to, reference a Timur Mashnin; the page creator's account name is User:Tmashnin). It gives no indication of notability, cites no third-party sources, and is furthermore impenetrable to the average reader. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any third-party sources that meed WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are unreliable/insufficient to establish notability of this software. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing early closure per WP:SNOWBALL. Anybody object, or can we go flag down an admin? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rush? Yes, the result is likely to be delete. Is keeping this discussion open wasting the time of a vast number of editors? Is it a BLP? I'd be extremely surprised if this is closed before the usual minimum 7 days are up. Also, I note that the talk page is non-existent. If it were tagged with the relevant WikiProjects, then this AfD could have been flagged to WikiProject members via automatic Article Alerts. This would mean specialists would be more likely to comment. (Hardly seems worth it now, though.) -- Trevj (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2012 (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.