Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meograph


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Meograph

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real coverage of the article's subject except some mentions near release. Ducknish (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 23.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * DeleteThe references are product reviews at best, and appear likely to be material from the PR department reprinted. Article makes a claim that it "serves" 4 types of users,  but the references cited don't support that, and are the only cites to those 4 references.   Created by a SPA. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP. No mentions in news, few on web, most are blogs. --John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2012 (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.