- 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fs123 (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)
Prod removed, some random person's github project meets no criteria for inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was improved as per the suggestions for improvement in terms of adding sources and speaking to notability which is why the PROD template was removed. Would love a constructive discussion around any further issues which need to be addressed. Cheesy123456789 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The three references provided do not help to establish notability. I couldn't find any suitable references to add. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sourcing is not sufficient to establish notability. Arguments for it being less bad than it used to be are not arguments to keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2019 (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.