Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persistor.NET


 * 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 - once third-party sources are found, those arguing for deletion need to at the very least say whether their concerns are met. They didn't, so until adminship comes with telepathy, I'm forced to assume that they are. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistor.NET


Seems to be non-notable spam and fails WP:WEB. Tarret 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Non-notable spam, possibly COI. Xdenizen 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep As a computer scientist, I can attest this is a genuine framework and is worth keeping. It needs to be put into context, tidied up, expanded, and linked. scope_creep 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't accept "Trust me, I'm a doctor." here. If you want to demonstrate that this software warrants an encyclopaedia article, cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:SOFTWARE criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep a software is not inherently notable just because you know it exists or you use it. Keep because they appear to have been mentioned in multiple publications and won multiple awards . However, remove the fluff about the features because no reliable sources I've found go into the details. Kavadi carrier 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up and now asserts notability somewhat. Kavadi carrier 03:13, 8 November 2006 (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.