Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moontoast

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 no consensus. One (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moontoast

Non-notable site, fails WP:WEB, needs complete re-write for WP:NPOV, can't find any WP:RS online supporting notability MuffledThud (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete per nom. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete site snapshot. This is a simple site synopsis, like any other web property, like Amazon.com or Google. Has been re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.195.253 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 69.180.195.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep & Relist I hate to admonish nominators, but when people first start an article, we should give them an opportunity to improve the article first. This was created only 6 days ago and has made some improvements. We need to invite people to contribute, but we shouldn't expect an FA article on the first edit. I'm not saying this won't eventually be a deleted article, but I think we should give the author time to actually start the article first rather than speed to deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, it's not brilliant, but, frankly, it's interesting and I've seen much less notable subjects escape deletion. The subject seems novel and worthy of a mention in an encyclopaedia, though the article needs some improvement, but as BQZip01 points out, it's not very old and should be given a chance through a collaborative effort to improve it. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give the author some time to improve the article and add any sources he can find. If you still feel it lacks notability, renominate it in a few weeks. Tim meh ! 21:16, 21 April 2009 (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.