Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sysomos

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sysomos

See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sysomos. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete This article has potential and it a perfect example of an article that in its current shape will fail at AFD, but with some effort and work on the part of the authors could be salvaged into a decent article. If it is improved upon, I am not opposed to changing my !vote.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Has three reliable sources covering it exclusively and is the result of a notable product (BlogScope), thus it has received coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that can be considered significant. Regards So Why 06:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. This is borderline; but while this reads like another make-money-fast-on-the-Internet scheme that promises more than it could reasonably hope to deliver, it has received disinterested coverage in general interest publications outside the trade, specifically the Toronto Star. Though that is technically only local media, it's fairly major local media. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some notability, independent coverage. May also increase in notability as sites such as Facebook increasing turn to similar tools in search of profitability Rotovia (talk) 00:44, 1 June 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.