Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Live Betas

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Betas[edit]

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

This article fails general notability guideline for web contents ~~and provides no sources whatsoever~~. Note that although the subject of Windows Live itself is notable, the subject of The Web Page From Which You Used To Access Windows Live Beta Products is not notable. ~~Due to absolute lack of source, the alternative of merging it into Windows Live Essentials article is ruled out.~~ Fleet Command (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the above for the given reasons. --Pstanton (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - We've been through this already, this is the second attempt the same author attempting to delete this article. As indicated on this edit, the Speedy deletion request for Windows Live Betas was declined by an administrator. The reason given was: Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. The article was once Windows Live Ideas which played significant importance to Windows Live. Windows Live Ideas has since been discontinued, however as a historical product, its significance is still retained. It is important to note that wikipedia does not discriminate against historical or discontinued products that had a significance in its time. --Damaster98 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the article now has sufficient references in place. Thus the author's claim that there are "no sources" is not valid anymore. --Damaster98 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Thanks for the notice Damaster98. However, note that the article still fails general notability guideline as this article has only provided primary sources while notability requires coverage from independent sources. Besides, notability is not temporary. My concern however is that your sources are either primary or temporary.
  - However, now that your article is not entirely lacking sources, it can safely be merged into a broader topic which reinforces notability. Fleet Command (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If deletion does happen, please retain the information and merge into the article Windows Live. --Damaster98 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: The fact that I declined the speedy deletion only means that I considered the article to not meet any of the narrow criteria for speedy deletion, and should not be deleted without discussion. It may still be deemed non-notable after a discussion at AfD. In fact, if I remember correctly, I encouraged Fleet Command to nominate the article for AfD if they wished to pursue deletion further. auto / decltype (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sufficient notability has been given for this webpage in the article or the sources. Cursory search did not give any indication that this is notable. feydey (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I would love to be able to keep under WP:NTEMP (which has been cited above in a manner completely inverse to it's meaning), I cannot justify it. I can find lots of references to the site, but they are all fleeting mentions. Hundreds of news articles that state something is available for download at the site, plus dozens of printed press releases, don't add up to notability due to the lack of depth. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:14, 23 November 2009 (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.