Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyro Desktop

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 whether or not provided sourcing meets the GNG. lifebaka++ 05:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro Desktop

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

can't find any notibility or enough coverage Alan - talk 00:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to lack detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore does not meet the GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only thing I've really got on this is one eWeek article, so it's up to the discretion of the closing admin if this project meets wp:GNG. in my opinion, it would. riffic (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And something else from ars technica. riffic (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only valid AfD in an obvious case of wikihounding. LiteralKa (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to apparent retaliation, of which I was not aware, that can be dealt with somewhere else. What matters on this page is whether or not the article meets the criteria for deletion. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references are valid and article meets wp:GNG, nom made a few other POINTy deletion nominations against articles I've created in an apparant attempt to retaliate against previous deletion discussions, in violation of deletion policy. Evidence can be presented if requested. riffic (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, just meets GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am curious on what basis we are seeing other suggestions to keep, given the distinct lack of coverage from multiple third party sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your claim is untrue, multiple third party sources are provided and the coverage provided by them satisfies WP:GNG. riffic (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by reliable, independent source material which are already in the article. Steven Walling 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the recent references added are good, I think that they may not be enough. Anything more recent to show that this software actually had an effect? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (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.