Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Media Player per Teacher

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. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Media Player per Teacher

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

A google search reveals only blog like references; and google news, scholar and books have a grand total of zero hits. Is being edited under COI and looks to be a bit of an advert to boot. Fails verifiability, reliable sources, encyclopedic notability and add a dash of conflict of interest and advertising into it as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment From the guide to deletion: "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." You could at least link the numerous alphabet soup terms used in the nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited Spartaz's post expanding the acronyms to their meanings and linking them - hope that's okay taz. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-21t21:53z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-21t21:57z
Note my keyboard doesnt have an accessible | character on is so wikimarkup like that is a pain. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did the prod before. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-21t21:53z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JakeZ (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 28 November 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.