Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Papershow
- 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) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oxford Papershow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product as far as I can tell Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Non-trivial, third-party, reliable coverage here, here, here, here, plus a few more here and here. J04n(talk page) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 03:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the ghits, it seems to be a widely known product in several countries. This is confirmed by looking for actual reviews at GNews archive -- I find the same as J04n, and most of them are clearly substantial reviews from RSs. It does not seem the nominator even thought to look. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 5 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.