Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djing Software


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Djing Software

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

Unreferenced  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I need time to improve this page and to complete it, to add references etc. If you suppress it yet, how could I ever do a decent work? --Borisln (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC) (copied from this edit.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC))


 * In that case, I suggest userfying the article until it is ready for publication.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CHANCE. This is way too early to go to AFD, not to mention is serving to bite a newcomer as a result of said nomination. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep actually tagged for deletion the very same minute it was started. Give editors a chance to write the articles. DGG (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Don't bite the newcomers, simply suggest developing the article in userspace. David WS (contribs)  18:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have found sources online for this type of software, so it is notable. I will work on developing the article now. David WS  (contribs)  18:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the above comments, lack of sources is not enough for a speedy delete, and articles not candidates for speedy delete should be allowed a little more time to develop before they are nominated for deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2008 (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.