Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triposo


 * 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep however the article needs better sourcing. Chillum 05:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Triposo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreliable sources that are essentially press releases.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has already been up for speedy deletion and was declined for this reason: "Decline - Speedy is not appropriate, as there are multiple reliable sources, like Engadget, that dedicate articles to it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Speedy deletion might not be appropriate, but regular deletion seems to be. First two references are subject's own website. Third is a traffic ranking (which is minimal - showing lack of use). The fourth appears to be effectively a press release. That leaves two relatively old articles that could be legit or could be disguised press releases.  Not enough to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's marked as for a reason.Anarchyte (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have since updated the page, it now has more references and information since last update. Anarchyte (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This TechCrunch article is well within reliability standards, but I'm afraid that's the best RS the app can garner at this moment. Inclusions in "(phone model) Survival Guide" books, "the (number) apps for (purpose)" lists and such is not establishing very sturdy notability. Some mentions in informatics/information engineering journals/papers are nice, but sadly they are little more than passing.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: four sources in the article plus a half-dozen or so on HighBeam that significantly cover the topic are more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Esquivalience t 12:29, 30 May 2015 (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.