Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Editions


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Editions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL with no 3rd party, reliable sources. ℳøℕø 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - As much as I hate this kind of "sourcing", which is nothing more than a google news search term link (which isn't a real source), when I use it there are mentions about it. It seems to have been actually announced and there's coverage. If it turns out to not develop I would say a later deletion or merge would be appropriate, but there's some coverage here from reliable sources. It's not some guy's blog. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - I've added some additional sources, including the New Yorker article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Additional in-depth coverage by CNET, The Daily Telegraph and PC World:, , . — Rankiri (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep seems notable. &mdash;innotata 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2010 (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.