Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inkfruit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Inkfruit: keep |
Schierbecker (talk | contribs) →Inkfruit: striked |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:({{Find sources|Inkfruit}}) |
:({{Find sources|Inkfruit}}) |
||
Non-notable, orphaned and apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=&page=Inkfruit&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= never reviewed] [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
Non-notable, orphaned and apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=&page=Inkfruit&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= never reviewed] [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|Marcus Qwertyus]] ([[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|talk]]) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak keep''' - it seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as can be seen from the references section, and thus passes [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] [[User talk:Claritas|§]] 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
*'''<s>Weak keep</s>''' - it seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as can be seen from the references section, and thus passes [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] [[User talk:Claritas|§]] 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
**I'm not so sure about ''significant'' coverage. Really only one of the references (the Economic Times review) is more than a short mention of the company. Is that enough to establish notability? [[User:Makeemlighter|Makeemlighter]] ([[User talk:Makeemlighter|talk]]) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
**I'm not so sure about ''significant'' coverage. Really only one of the references (the Economic Times review) is more than a short mention of the company. Is that enough to establish notability? [[User:Makeemlighter|Makeemlighter]] ([[User talk:Makeemlighter|talk]]) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">[[User:Tavix|<b>Tavix</b>]] | [[User_talk:Tavix|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">[[User:Tavix|<b>Tavix</b>]] | [[User_talk:Tavix|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
||
Revision as of 23:49, 17 June 2010
- Inkfruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, orphaned and apparently never reviewed Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep- it seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as can be seen from the references section, and thus passes WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)- I'm not so sure about significant coverage. Really only one of the references (the Economic Times review) is more than a short mention of the company. Is that enough to establish notability? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Changing my mind a bit here. I don't think the references in the article constitute significant coverage to establish notability, but Inkfruit's pressroom has links to quite a few other sources, newspaper/periodical articles from what I can tell, that should be enough to establish notability. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)