Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C9 Companion

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 delete. At best there is only one source, which has been challenged. As it could be close to meeting our requirements I'd be happy tonreview further sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C9 Companion[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

other than the jerusalem post (which I question as being written by their editorial staff) the rest of the sources are black hat seo from sniped, once reputable sites and PR pieces (as in the IBT piece) and I can find nothing else in the way of coverage to satisfy NSOFT Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The non-trivial mentions look to be fluff pieces drumming up excitement and trying to enroll new users.Citing (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have removed the depreciated source. NSOFT is an essay but this topic has received significant covergae in independent sources[1], [2] to satisfy the notability guideline. Nerilanik (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is nothing more than a regurgitated press release and isn't reliable. Jpost is...meh as a source for this right now but it would be the sole independent source which isn't enough for an article. Praxidicae (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I urged to keep it based on Jpost coverage and while multiple coverage is expected (which it has), "there is no fixed number of sources required" according to WP:GNG. Nerilanik (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Jpost source isn't suitable for a standalone article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2020 (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.