Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander One: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Keep |
Joseph2302 (talk | contribs) →Commander One: keep |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''Keep''' - The article is well-sourced as per comments. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - The article is well-sourced as per comments. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' and I nearly almost closed this as such but I'll let anyone else comment as this certainly seems like enough for now. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">SwisterTwister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' and I nearly almost closed this as such but I'll let anyone else comment as this certainly seems like enough for now. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">SwisterTwister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' per above, lots of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to pass [[WP:GNG]]. {{ping|Citobun}} How is this just spam? I don't much like the Features list, but apart from that it seems encyclopedic and well-sourced. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:28, 29 December 2015
- Commander One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Appears to be spam. Citobun (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The article has references to Lifehacker, Softpedia, Apple World Today, about.com. TechRepublic, and Macworld. It is notable. CarnivorousBunnytalk 22:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I already added 4 resources last week (Macworld, TechRepublic, about.com, Envato). I will be glad to improve the article, please let me know what should I do for it.DashaG11 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The references are to high quality, reputable sites and give good coverage. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - The article is well-sourced as per comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and I nearly almost closed this as such but I'll let anyone else comment as this certainly seems like enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per above, lots of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. @Citobun: How is this just spam? I don't much like the Features list, but apart from that it seems encyclopedic and well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)