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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply

ArpON (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Tagged by Widefox. Prod removed by creator, as well as all the tags, without any reason given. Boleyn ( talk) 12:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm sorry but I don't understand what is the problem of ArpON page with WP policies. This page describes correctly the principal keys of the ArpON Open source project as all others Free Software projects describe in the WP. The all informations about ArpON has been take from the original web site of the project: http://arpon.sourceforge.net This page is not to commercial scope because ArpON is born as Open source project for the Open source community with BSD license. Please, can you describe which is the wrong? Thank you. Spikeyrock, 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I just modified the page of ArpON where I added the references from ubuntu.com e books.google.com. Thank you. Spikeyrock, 16:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeyrock ( talk • contribs)

• Keep. Plenty of references if you care to look for them. I just added several. Andyjsmith ( talk) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

With the new references from books, research articles and web site, is the page of ArpON ok? Thank you. Spikeyrock, 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeyrock ( talk • contribs)

Well, that's up to this discussion, which will take several days, but I should say so. Perhaps the nominator @ Boleyn: might withdraw the AfD? Andyjsmith ( talk) 20:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Earlier today I was planning on voting delete, if you look at the article history it has come a long way in a very short amount of time I vote keep. the article has a lot of articles that link into it and it has secondary sources for references. and while I wouldn't nominate it for FA today I think its keepable. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep improved, although lots of passing mentions. Useful to have while I suspect the techniques are WP:TOOEARLY. Needs the promo tone removed. Widefox; talk 23:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Nomination withdrawn Boleyn ( talk) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, I would tell thank you so much for your work! Spikeyrock, 10:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.107.242 ( talk)

Hi, in the page of ArpON appears again "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.". Is there a new problem with policies of WP? Thank you. Spikeyrock, 15:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeyrock ( talk • contribs)

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.