Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convore

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. consensus after multiple relistings DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convore

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article itself already shows secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with User:Notnoteworthy, not notable. Arrangington (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Struck coomment by a sockpuppet of Notnoteworthy - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notnoteworthy. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if the nominator and supporter could explain why they don't consider the cited PCWorld and MIT Technology Review articles to be independent, reliable and consisting of significant coverage. Deletion discussions are supposed to be about evidence, not unsubstantiated personal opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. The PC World and MIT Technology Review articles seem to be enough to squeak by WP:GNG. Gong show 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.