Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetHope NetReliefKit


 * 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   merge to NetHope. Spartaz Humbug! 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

NetHope NetReliefKit

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable; belongs as a paragraph in the article NetHope. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ~ Qwerp  ♫ ♪ ツ  00:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is in serious need of jargon-free statements about what this does, but it is a significant invention meritorious of an article. Reading into the source material gives a much clearer indication of what this does.  Unfortunately this article seems to be written by techies who are only user-friendly communicating with other techies.  I added the solar powered element to one sentence (a key element), but amongst the wikilinked jargon I can't see a way to write it in english without losing clarity about what this actually does.  Being placed in the NetHope article will serve to bury this invention under the article about the organization. Trackinfo (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Substantively, keep or merge. The topic clearly meets the inclusion guidelines given the coverage in independent reliable sources. Procedurally, speedy keep (including its imputation of bad faith) because of the nominator's failure to comply with WP:BEFORE, in particular the blindingly obvious point #4. Bongo  matic  01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and merge to NetHope per nom. Barely enough information to even establish context for an article. Not notable enough for a listing separate from the parent company article. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:00, 27 August 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.