Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.nnotate


 * 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A.nnotate

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

nn website Exleops (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Exleops (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only sources that aren't the A.nnotate website are nonnotable bloggers. Fails notability requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have found exclusive coverage of this topic in a reliable source: CNET News. It is also covered significantly by Genbeta, Lifehacker, Makeuseof.com, Killer Startups. I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to judge the reliability of these references, but Lifehacker and Killer Startups are very prominent sources of information for new technology companies.  Skomorokh   19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. It's got just enough outside recognition to save it. Fences and windows (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it's marginal. The CNET reference sealed the deal for me as it's a reasonably reliable source. Majoreditor (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lifehacker and CNET reviews are enough for me, though I would like to see it rewritten to remove a lot of the superfluous references and be generally more encyclopedic.  I'll watchlist it, and if it survives I'll work on it some.  Livitup (talk) 14:20, 9 June 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.