Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesktopTwo (2nd nomination)

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. NW (Talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DesktopTwo

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

Non-notable. Flash in the pan. Average.

article has four references: two of which are significant from reliable sources. i'm sure that will attract the typical keep vote.

but - the product is now dead and was just one of several "WebOS" style offerings from the last several years. it was not unique in features, style, or business concept. deletion rationale here is a variant of fifteen minutes of fame and not news. If this should be kept, maybe a Dot-com graveyard article that these types of also-ran products can be dumped to? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable in my opinion and belongs in an encyclopædia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- how has this shown historical significance? when an individual product category gets a lot of press attention, so will individual products. this is a paraphrase of the WP:NOTNEWS concept applied to a product. what has this product done that gives it lasting significance outside that one year timespan when these referenes were made? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Weak Delete - not significant reliable sources. Not really notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - weak sources. Racepacket (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles have to be beyond repair to be deleted. If you want more sources, add more sources. Laziness is not a reason to delete and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. I really would prefer that software is only notable when noticed in non-IT sources. But this has been reviewed by C-NET, NetworkWorld, TechRepublic[1] and that's probably good enough to pass current consensus. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to satisfy notability. It's kinda sad that it does, but it does nonetheless; I blame the media. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:26, 20 November 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.