Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevx

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. Okay there is enough consensus now. Also, the nominator was blocked for various disruption too as I found out and thinks to an IP comment on WP:ANI as well. The improvements by User:Joe Chill helped the article very well. JForget 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevx

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

This article has been tagged for notability since March 2009 and fails in WP:NOT S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources/references (except offfical page) to justify notability on this one line article since March 2009. Notability still not established. Ghits have not found much reliable sources. Most of sources are sites in which we can download this freeware. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Neutral ~~I still think that this article must be developped more as one line is definitely not sufficient... and add references.~~ Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call Joe Chill. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded and sourced. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent job. Keep it up. (+ I crossed out my recommandation) ;) Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 14:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won an award in a major magazine, and other sources. Dream Focus 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why was this relisted? The neutral comment can be ignored because the editor obviously thinks that the article passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per expansion done by Joe Chill. --Milowent (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – seems notable enough to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 11:41, 10 October 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.