Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roboform


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Roboform

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I declined an expired prod on this article because it's been around since December 2005 and makes some definite assertions of notability. The article definitely lacks appropriate citations and has tone problems, but is it salvageable? Since this is a procedural nomination, I don't presently take a stand. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete to to lack of credible sourcing in the article. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's loads of coverage of this out there - Google Books returns quite a lot, e.g. this, this, this, this, this, and this from PC World, which is only a snippet but confirms that the software was PC Magazine 'Editor's Choice' and won CNET's 'Best Software of the Year' award. Lots of news items also on Google News. The article can clearly be fixed.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep good sources now found for notability  There's a reason for WP:BEFORE.     DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.