Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BytesForAll


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim  meh  !  23:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

BytesForAll

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

Reason: I think this article is promotional in tone - although here since 2006 and extensively edited by others, it's very poorly referenced (both links dead) and doesn't give in-depth coverage of the subject. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - In other words, you just don't like the article? I do not believe that is a valid reason for proposing at AFD.  Rather than propose for deletion, how about looking up some references.  I actually found it rather easy by just going to Google News and behold, came up with these .  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - nothing to do with what I like or dislike, but I accept I incorrectly listed this article and I apologise for wasting your time. Please close the debate, thank you. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. From WP:Deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Deletion is only appropriate if the page cannot be improved, with the sole exception of copyright violations or other content that needs to be removed from the edit history for legal or practical reasons.  The page simply being bad, no matter how bad, is never sufficient grounds for deletion.  I see no question of notability for this topic, given the large number of sources that exist out there, and no other grounds to delete.  In addition to google news, google scholar turns up: .  Cazort (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is notable. Poor quality of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. Tim  meh  !  20:46, 10 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.