Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trelby


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Trelby

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I hate to do this. I am sure you are quite excited about this product but I found the following strong negatives

1. No News articles or scholar reviews of this software. I am sure your page has this but its not enough 2. The only hits in Google are the odd troubleshooting questions. Please note that blogs don't count as articles. 3. The only reference on this page is the home page of the project and that's not enough. You need more independent websites.

Please get this work done urgently. Its important to keep this page Wikishagnik (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I added third party news references. Anil.verve (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but that's not enough. You still need more verifiable third party references. Please go though all the guidelines Wikishagnik (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Those who wish to improve an article, as the nominator does, should improve it, or ask the contributor to improve it, not nominate it for deletion.  There seem two reasonable quality third party references with substantial coverage that do not read like press releases, which is sufficient for any product.  DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: it was not all that good idea to write about a software that was just resurrected, but as it is already written and contains two WP:RS, it should be left alone. Both sources comply with WP:N and WP:NSOFT. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found . SL93 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Though indeed reliable, it is the same publisher as The H reference in article. It even links there. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:48, 10 February 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.