Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander One


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Commander One

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Appears to be spam. Citobun (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has references to Lifehacker, Softpedia, Apple World Today, about.com. TechRepublic, and Macworld. It is notable. CarnivorousBunny talk 22:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I already added 4 resources last week (Macworld, TechRepublic, about.com, Envato). I will be glad to improve the article, please let me know what should I do for it.DashaG11 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references are to high quality, reputable sites and give good coverage. White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 16:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is well-sourced as per comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and I nearly almost closed this as such but I'll let anyone else comment as this certainly seems like enough for now. SwisterTwister   talk  21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, lots of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. How is this just spam? I don't much like the Features list, but apart from that it seems encyclopedic and well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart of a lot of maybe reliable sources, this kind of features list is not acceptable in encyclopedic form of wikipedia article and it is suggestion that it's commercial article Marslo2015 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2015 (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.