Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connect360


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Connect360

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  17:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: I understand why it was nominated for deletion, as it certainly deserved considering the state of the article. I just edited it though and added a reception section and provided two reputable sources. They demonstrate the article's notability, so I believe it should be kept now. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No way does that automatically establish notability. There needs to be significant coverage of this from reliable, independent sources for this page to establish notability, and I have not been able to find any. Two sources is pathetic for an article this short. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 20:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like you have it mixed up. Two sources is more than enough for an article this short. I'd say two reviews from big name publishers establishes some degree of notability. The sources are reliable and independent as well, so I don't know why you bring that up. You also seem kinda hostile in your language. Don't know why you are being antagonistic. EDIT: Just added another source from PC World. I think the notability of the product has been established. Three major technology publishers wrote about this software. What more could you ask? SECOND EDIT: Found two more sources, one from a publish magazine. This piece of software has definitely gotten some attention. If two sources wasn't enough, how about five? Bluedude588 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This article clear fails the notability guidelines. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 20:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It is significantly covered, and does NOT fail any guidelines whatsoever. For example, and . JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet account.  Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 00:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added ANOTHER reliable source. JoeLeboe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet account. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 00:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: I feel this article meets the criteria for notability. Also, since when does a user's opinion NOT matter if it turns out to be a sock? Haseo9999 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because creating additional accounts to try and make it look like others agree with you is against policy. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 01:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. Haseo9999 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Macworld review (of version 3.1) and other tech media coverage are enough to satisfy GNG. Pavlor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Essentially per Pavlor.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2019 (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.