Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okopipi (software tool) (3rd 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 Speedy Keep Good faith but mistaken nom. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okopipi (software tool) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notabiiity under question - 3rd AFD. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verified, sourced, notable and historically interesting. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD should never have been started if you believe it should be kept. You could have just removed the tag without starting a new AfD. Enigma^msg 15:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close (delete the nomination unless a reasoning is provided and discussion is raised) The nomination does not explain why the notability is questioned and why we shouldn't follow the outcome of the previous two AFDs. No valid reason to delete provided. No prejudice against a better reasoned nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The last edit (which I reversed) was an abbreviation, and a prod thereby seeking to circumvent the previous afd outcomes. I therefore thought it best to rediscuss. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no such prod. Prod is proposed deletion. Enigma^msg 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  [1] Kittybrewster ☎ 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See what I said. There was no prod. Enigma^msg 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks notable. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 12:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I am finding many more sources than the ones currently listed, see: [2] For a relatively new piece of software, I think this very firmly establishes notability. Cazort (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I'm not sure why this article as nominated, it appears it was nominated because someone tagged the article with {{notablity}}. There is a bunch of recent editing that is, at best, confusing. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and close Bad faith nomination. Enigma^msg 15:43, 19 April 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.