Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/System Commander

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

System Commander

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Long-dead software which gained only modest coverage in its day. Totally uncited article. Further sources are available at it's Wikidata page, mostly reviews. Nothing indicates WP:SUSTAINED coverage or interest. Daask (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brief Google Books search indicates broad enough and sustained coverage to satisfy GNG: eg. InfoWorld 1994-09-05 p. 97, 1995-06-19 p. 132, 1998-08-03 p. 96; PC Mag 2000-05-09 p. 208, 2002-03-26 p. 48 etc. I will try to improve this article, if I find the time (my to-do-list is long and wiki time short these days...). Pavlor (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the reviews mentioned in the nomination, and the high-quality sources found by User:Pavlor. Modernponderer (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search produces atleast a few results for the subject. Subject therefore meets WP:GNG. Article must be kept and allowed to be brought up to acceptable standards. Other users in this thread offering to do this support my view that the article remain. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:48, 17 April 2020 (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.