- 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Brightpod ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating for AfD due to lack of notability. PROD removed, citing "Significant coverage in cited reliable sources, specifically: [1], [2], [3]". TechCrunch, SmallBizTrends, and TheNextWeb do not appear to amount to "significant" coverage to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete by all means, all of this is simply PR. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Someone got to it before I did. There's no assertion of notability, and WP:ENN. MSJapan ( talk)
- Keep - Significant coverage in cited reliable sources. The relevant definition for significant coverage is
WP:SIGCOV and this is clearly met. "Insufficient coverage to sustain an encyclopedia entry" is a subjective assessment and not a valid
WP:DEL-REASON. Other delete comments are also
not compelling. ~
Kvng (
talk)
14:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SIGCOV is debateable but even then it is a presumption, not a rule for inclusion. Per WP:DEL-REASON Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth).-- Savonneux ( talk) 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.-- Savonneux ( talk) 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Brightpod ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating for AfD due to lack of notability. PROD removed, citing "Significant coverage in cited reliable sources, specifically: [1], [2], [3]". TechCrunch, SmallBizTrends, and TheNextWeb do not appear to amount to "significant" coverage to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete by all means, all of this is simply PR. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Someone got to it before I did. There's no assertion of notability, and WP:ENN. MSJapan ( talk)
- Keep - Significant coverage in cited reliable sources. The relevant definition for significant coverage is
WP:SIGCOV and this is clearly met. "Insufficient coverage to sustain an encyclopedia entry" is a subjective assessment and not a valid
WP:DEL-REASON. Other delete comments are also
not compelling. ~
Kvng (
talk)
14:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SIGCOV is debateable but even then it is a presumption, not a rule for inclusion. Per WP:DEL-REASON Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth).-- Savonneux ( talk) 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.-- Savonneux ( talk) 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.