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. Punkmorten 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shivah[edit]

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as now passes WP:SOFTWARE: I have just added 7 references that proclaim its notability. --Amaccormack 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Slab of reviews now present, good quality third-party sources. QuagmireDog 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is notable, is featured in a Reuters article, this is not a case of original research, by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valley2city (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree, it passes WP:SOFTWARE. TSO1D 04:07, 16 December 2006 (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.