Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back In Time (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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Back In Time (software) (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)
Article lacks any WP:RS to establish meeting WP:GNG ... WP:PROD removed by author. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I actually use this software on a linux box. I think it is worth keeping this article. The software is quite good. I think the article does not do any harm and is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.197.9 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow Talk 07:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The argument above is WP:NOHARM, but I think it meets WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage about it in reliable sources in its field, including Linux Insider, Lifehacker and MakeUseOf. My reservation is that it doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT, which requires it to be discussed as significant in its field. I don't think it's discussed as significant in the above articles, just as a useful piece of software. It's a close one, but I believe there's barely enough coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find anything on it. Corn cheese (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 1 November 2012 (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.