Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scopical

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. Sr13 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scopical

Scopical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy deleted before (db-spam), I was asked to make a discussion so I list it here. Tone 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think its clearly worthy considering it provides a third party point of reference for its upcoming service. The page is a commentary on its development and provides information on an up and coming product, of which is potentially significant.
• Strong Delete I found this one by sheer luck, as I remember placing this on my watch list before speedy deleting it some months back in the first pass of the Aussie corporate category cleanup. As not meeting WP:CORP, references do not meet WP:RS as they are self-published by the company, and as its all something being released in the future and has not produced a living product, i'll throw in WP:CRYSTAL for good measure. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. Its product hasn't even been released yet - hard to be notable without one. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Clarityfiend 16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (I forgot to state my opinion before...) --Tone 16:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as above - Kneale 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated by others Dixonsej 18:16, 9 June 2007
• Delete as above. Recurring dreams 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CORP, vapourware... take your pick. Lankiveil 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy delete Not only WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CORP, but after reading that article I'm not even sure I know what the product *is*. Orderinchaos 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's Web 2.0! It doesn't have to make sense! Lankiveil 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

• Comment I needed that laugh Lankiveil, gold. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete They know what references are... now where are the secondary references to show notability? Oh, there are none.Garrie 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment seems like it needs salting too.Garrie 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the comments above, fails the everything test. RFerreira 06:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent sources and non-notable. *Cremepuff222* 21:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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.