Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoneware webOS

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Wizardman 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneware webOS

Speedied as A7. Recreated 5 days later. I'm not sure that it's notable. And going round-and-round with speedies isn't really helping. Bringing to AfD for consensus. -- Swerdnaneb 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It needs at least one other independent reliable source with significant coverage to pass notability guidelines, in my opinion. It would be better if the article actually made a claim of notability and was written a bit less like an advertisement/list of features. swa q 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional independent notability article, cleaned up article language to improve subjective nature David Kushner (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added only seems to mention it in addition to MokaFive. I'm not sure I'd call that significant coverage. I was also turned off when I got sent to an advertisement page before being redirected to the actual article. swa q 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing... until I got to page 2. -- Swerdnaneb 16:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the second page. It still seemed like a rather short blurb, but it is borderline. Are there any more independent sources? swa q 16:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence of notability. Laudak (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in technology press indicates notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 18:33, 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.