Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindView


 * 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   No consensus. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

MindView

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Yet another project management product, this one has only a single third party source, and no claim to substantial, lasting notability. OSbornarfcontribs. 03:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Some sources:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep While I can't read the second of Norrthamerica1000's sources, and the third offers little, the first plus perhaps this, plus a few other passing mentions get us to the edge of WP:GNG, and the remaining sources establish some margin over that. Certainly not highly notable, but perhaps notable enough. --joe deckertalk to me 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Only one good source. WP:GNG: "Multiple sources are generally expected". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Which one is the supposed "good" source? Can you be more specific? If only one is "good", which ones are therefore bad? Sources hidden behind paywalls doesn't hinder their validity. See also WP:PAYWALL. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The PDF. The other requires a log-in to access. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 17 May 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.