Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/280 Slides


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

280 Slides

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be spam regarding non notable software. No reliable sources cited and a google search throws up nothing but blogs and primary sources. HJMitchell   You rang?  17:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete Spam without independent references. Drawn Some (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Smartse (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There is some external coverage. This might be a blog, but some blogs are OK as reliable sources, and this seems to fit the bill:. Also on Ars Technica:. Fences and windows (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm inclined to agree with Fences and windows, actually. I've been contacted by the original authour and he's provided me with two sources. Whether they qualify as WP:RS, I'm not entirely sure, but I think there is some hope of establishing notability. As such, can we hold fire on closing this one and I'll try to engage the authour in conversation to see if we can bring about an improvement. HJMitchell    You rang?  07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment. The author gave me and, with a little digging, I've found, , , , . Whether a single one of those meets WP:RS, I wouldn't like to guess, but it's enough to persuade me to fight for the article, at least for now- and I nominated it!  HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m  23:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I did some more digging around, and found mentions in Laptop Magazine and The Guardian. I've added those to the article, which I think now counts as sufficiently notable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:12, 15 May 2009 (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.