Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infonautics (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Clearly a WP:SNOW situation. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Infonautics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Page was recently deleted for being nothing but WP:PROMO. This incarnation isn't much better. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep-Seems to have had significant coverage. Sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG. The shape its in now does not reflect what it could be. I would advise the nominator to improve the article instead of tagging for deletion.-- Church  Talk 23:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not promotional now, and also has several third-party sources now. — MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - do I smell snow?  This new version is neutral in tone and is supported by many references from independent reliable sources that signficantly discuss the topic.   The nominators description is curious, and would seem to indicate that they neither reviewed the new stub, nor reviewed the new references, but rather were just on autopilot.   The nominator may want to take a step back, slow down, and re-evaluate their working methods.  I do hope this is not a pattern with them. (ping ) --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator needs to be told to reset her or his sights in regard to deletion. There have been too many nominations recently devoid of any rationale based on policies or guidelines. Given the prejudice against us editors who prefer to reveal their IP addresses rather than hide behind a pseudonym it's best if I'm not the one to do that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - not in the least promotional so the nomination is fundamentally flawed. Meets WP:GNG. WP:LISTED is also relevant. I declined the nominator's WP:G11 request because I was of the opinion that the page could be fixed by editing, and this version demonstrates that. (Having said that, in the interests of balance, I should say that another admin did delete the page so that was not a universal view). Just Chilling (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember the admin who first deleted this from years ago as one who regularly speedily deleted articles even when such deletion had been validly contested, and it seems that he is going even further now and wheel-warring with other admins. It's bad enough having disruptive deletion nominators who may not realise that they are being disruptive, but why do we continue to put up with disruptive admins who should know better? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- a pioneer in this technology, was at one time WP:LISTED, reasonably sourced and neutral in tone. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Stub with enough coverage to establish notability. the contents are written in a neutral language.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2016 (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.