Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechRax


 * 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. North America1000 17:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

TechRax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only sources are YouTube, and YouTube is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This isn't really the sort of thing that I think belongs on Wikipedia, but it's got coverage:, , , , , , .  Much of the coverage is pretty weak, but there's enough commentary spread through the articles that it could fill up a stub or start-class article.  If this is kept, I'll see about rewriting the article and doing what I can make it encyclopedic.  No promises, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * keep I was pretty skeptical. Nevertheless I looked at the string of sources User:NinjaRobotPirate posted.  article #1 didn't blow me away, so I checked the ones end of the queue.   and was persuaded by this Gizmodo article  and this Fortune Magazine article .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this seems at best perhaps enough for minimal notability. If still questionable later, we can talk about it again. SwisterTwister   talk  07:58, 6 June 2016 (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.