Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XB Machine

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. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XB Machine[edit]

Delete as-yet unreleased software, per WP:CRYSTAL. Unreferenced, and somewhat spammy Mayalld (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is released, it is just beta. But that's no reason to delete something, as some software (e.g. some ICQ versions) never leaves beta and yet has its own article. If the spam is removed and if a cleanup is done, I think the article can be kept. So#Why 12:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your point SoWhy - I have attached the proposed, rewritten article, in the discussion page. --Itemirus (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the article once more - let me know --Itemirus (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, you aren't addressing the issue. Every reword just looks like another attempt to get the same unsubstantiated stuff about this product into the article in a different way. Unless you can get 3rd party references to this product, and the hype is removed (not tweaked to see if it will do this way, removed), I will remain of the opinion that it should be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being too picky on this matter - it's just a stub - i suggest you request for deletion the following stubs as well, because they all contain unsubstantiated and unreferenced stuff.
NX-OS
Möbius operating system (utter trash - this has been around for more than a year)
Eumel
AmiQNX
Coyotos

--Itemirus (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument Mayalld (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even the most cursory google search returned results [1] [2] which show the potential notability of this software, documented by reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what now? Shall we keep it? It has been improved even more. Can we remove the deletion tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemirus (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pleanty of references listed here now Braindigitalis (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, it meets WP:SOFTWARE guidelines and has received multiple non-trivial coverage. RFerreira (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2008 (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.