Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathometer

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breathometer

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

Finishing nomination for User:174.58.224.221, who had this to say on the talkpage: "Qualifies for deletion: 4. Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) This is nothing but existing technology with a new interface (phone) and the whole article reads like an ad, hopefully now that it's been featured on 'shark tank' someone more versed in WP deletion can get rid of this trash". I have no opinion on this one (concern could be fixed by WP:NOTCLEANUP, but I'm not sure if it meets the WP:GNG bar). Ansh6 6 6 07:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with coverage in PC Mag, CBS, Tech Crunch, Venture Beat. Not a great article, but while it doesn't offer a rounded view, there is factual information which can be referenced to reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn, how does everyone manage to find all of these sources for everything? My Google comes up with literally nothing half the time... Ansh6 6 6 17:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you just need to look at the references section of the article. ~KvnG 17:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, probably should have done that first. Whatever, I wasn't the one who should have done WP:BEFORE in this case, heh (excuses). Ansh6 6 6 19:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. How about you withdraw this nomination. ~KvnG 23:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, I just completed it procedurally. If you read my full statement, I'm neutral. Ansh6 6 6 01:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand and have not seen this sort of nomination before. Did 174.58.224.221 approach you and ask for help with this nomination? If not, it is definitely your nomination. If so, that doesn't relieve you of WP:BEFORE responsibilities or take away your authority to withdraw. ~KvnG 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

174.IP put up the deletion tag and a rationale on the talkpage. IIRC unregistered users can't create new AfD pages, so I finished it for them. Ansh6 6 6 18:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by sources cited in the article. ~KvnG 17:46, 10 October 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.