Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindowBlinds

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WindowBlinds

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

Yes, this has a lot of Google hits, the links provided are either from the producer or self-published; I could find nothing approaching independent, in-depth coverage of the topic. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, withdrawn, and thanks to those who presented sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because neither can I. Attention all future !voters, if you LIKE IT (WP:ILIKEIT) I hope you can also SOURCE IT. JBsupreme (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep on this one, I have thoroughly reviewed the book citations below and in this ONE instance I believe notability can be demonstrated. Wow, it really is possible!! JBsupreme (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You guys need to look harder: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. It's referenced in hundreds of hits on gBooks. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've never heard of it, but the Tucows link[13] counts as independent coverage. In that link it wins an award, and it's in very good company, with some of the other winners being very notable software programs such as WinRAR, Google Earth, Acrobat Reader, Microsoft Media Player etc. I checked the first book link, and that's independent too, being an O'Reilly Media book. So yeah, looks notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the WinRAR article is in dire need of proper sources. The rest speak for themselves. JBsupreme (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough with the additional links provided by the above 2 contributors RT | Talk 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie5533 and Peter Ballard. Notability has been sufficiently demonstrated, though I can't claim to have heard of WindowBlinds previously. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2009 (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.