Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mingle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mingle

Mingle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was tagged for speedy-deletion as G11 spam, but it does have independent sources. However, given the product's relative newness, and the quality of those sources, I have serious doubts regarding notability here. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Erm...I don't know. The article could be considerably improved with the information from those sources if someone got around to doing it. The sources also seem to show its notability. I'm going to have to say Keep here, unless someone can change my mind.Silver seren 15:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on condition of improvement and addition of verification of its impact. There is more content in the existing references that can be used to improve the article. The references are borderline in establishing notability. The first is a blog, but the second may be acceptable as a sufficiently reputable independent secondary source. An important question is: “Are Sam Aaron and Obie Fernandez completely independent to Mingle?” If it can’t be verified that Mingle has made some impact somewhere/somehow, then it can be assumed that it was a flash in a pan on May 07, 2007, and thus should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless concerns about WP:RS and WP:V are resolved. --Aarktica 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Can a product that was just announced for future release in May be notable now? If it's an iPod then yes. I just don't this this can make it. Waiting for future notability would be crystal-balling. MarkinBoston 01:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two third-party sources, but both of these are blogs. To demonstrate notability I'd expect something more reliable. Jakew 10:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added six more sources, which should be considered good sources. They can easily be changed into references and used to expand the article. I just...don't have the time to do so right now. (First day of school and all) If no one does expand the article when I get home, then I guess i'll do it myself.SilverserenC 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It has an almost retartedly vast amount of sources (for it's size), but the information is factual. Shouldn't that be listed instead at Stubs for deletion? Anyways, we'd delete probably a thousand articles if we tagged things like this.--Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
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.