Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GENOA Software

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. Closing as delete, but with no prejudice towards re-creation in the future should sufficient sources be found or become available to demonstrate notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GENOA Software

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable software product. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find this, and a lot of unrelated software with the Genoa name (Samsung). I get a sneaky suspicion, however, that there are many more articles on it, but in more technical publications. Withholding !vote for now. And yes, as it stands, the current article is a mess, but that isn't an issue for AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is a strong secondary source now, and I think we can find a couple more, but there are so many other products with similar names, it is very time consuming to filter through. There IS however, a tremendous amount of primary source references than can be added. Obviously these do nothing to demonstrate notability, but they will be useful in providing references for non-contentious facts. The article as it is, well, it is a complete mess and needs attention, which is of course, is not a reason to delete an article, but instead to improve it. In short, it passes the 'sniff' test, and has at least one very significant and strong 3rd party reference now, is widely used and has been for many years. I put it on my page, so if it is kept, I will take the time to properly research and rewrite the entire article myself. I can see why it was nominated, but after some serious digging, I think it is worth salvaging. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2011 (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.