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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketcetera[edit]

Marketcetera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Previous AfD had been improperly influenced by sockpuppetry; renominating this procedurally. NW (Talk) 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It seems to have some sources, even if they're not the greatest. I think this could be saved and improved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more [1], [2], [3], [4]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Burpelson's sources. Appears to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources and thereby pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all my previous comments. Basically I think that it is notable with a comfortable quality of coverage to meet the required WP standards.Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (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.