Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Login VSI
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Login VSI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The included references are not discussions of the product but simply mentions of how the product is used "in the wild." I cannot find any references to support the notability of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references don't exactly seem to be coverage of the subject as significant in its own right. Ducknish (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. After a conversation with the author on my talk page I'm now feel as though this program may have enough coverage to be notable, and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Ducknish (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At least I can cite the editor for WP:CANVASS Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After discussing the issue with Ducknish I added several other references where Login VSI is the main focus of the source instead of just a tool to show the performance of the vendors product. I also added a interview with the lead developer of Login VSI at Virtual-Strategy Magazine to increase notability.Frontaal (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Frontaal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the current refs: generally notable. – SJ + 02:29, 21 March 2013 (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.