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. W.marsh 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers· 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was previously speedied and a deletion review upheld the deletion (citing consensus among established editors, though that would depend on one's viewpoint, I suppose). Neutral as I was one requesting an overturn but am not certain it would stand up as is. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced; at the moment, it does not meet anything in WP:WEB. Given the speedy and (slightly dubious) DRV, I think a proper AfD is the right way to go about this. Trebor 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak keep per sources provided. They're minimal but suggest that others may exist. Trebor 15:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note also this link http://www.amazon.com/Namir-Deiter-More-Youre-Allowed/dp/B000ETUNJA/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/102-3558364-7518539 From it we find "Studio Ironcat; 1st edition (2005)" listed as the Publisher. This would seem to provide independent evidence that Studio Ironcat did indeed publish Namir Deiter. Whether Namir Dieter would have saved Studio Ironcat if it had been published sooner as the Ironcat Article speculated would seem to be a seperate question that can only be speculated upon rather than proved one way or the other. Small Pink Mouse 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, no verifiability. bogdan 13:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources provided above, now cited in article Terra Misu 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has 10 edits, all to do with this article. - Francis Tyers· 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to bring information that other editors don't appear to have. Evaluate the information.Terra Misu 10:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what; I don't care. As long as it's not just "keep" or "delete," and then saying that they like the noun the article discusses. If they have something insightful and useful, let's hear them out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madd the sane (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no reputable sources suggesting notability. -- Dragonfiend 16:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Had someone else picked up the Studio Ironcat contract, I'd argue weak keep, but appears to be self-published, and of limited audience. Claw and Quill review is one independent non-trivial mention, IconSF review *barely* qualifies, for a total of 1.5 independent non-trivial mentions. Argyriou(talk) 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - a single self published source isn't enough. Addhoc 13:14, 31 January 2007 (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.