Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell for Windows Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shell_for_Windows

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. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell for Windows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unremarkable computer program. No indication of notability, the one reference listed is simply to a site where it can be downloaded. Fails WP:GNG. Possible COI as well. Contested PROD, contester claimed: "The software got many awards and well reviews," but I can find no evidence of this. Ravendrop 20:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rather difficult to search, since the name of the software is such a common phrase (particularly 10 years before this product was introduced), bordering on a generic name. After careful searching through news and web, I don't find any interesting tid bits about this very, very new software package. Fails notability guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The program has good rating and success on two most popular software web-sites^[1][2]. In spite of young age of program it is not hard to find it on Google^[3]. 02:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Windowsshell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search positions and download sites have never been considered reliable sources, thus not eligible to demonstrate notability. Notability is demonstrated through independent sources that are independent of the subject matter, not websites hosting the product and profiting from advertising around it. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:59, 16 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment taking this as a grammatic phrase, the current title should redirect to windows shell or become an article covering MS Windows shell and windows shell replacement, since that's its conceptual meaning. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Name of the program should not be considered as grammatic phrase, such as names of many other programs ( Games for Windows, Design II for Windows, FaxMail for Windows)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable 3rd party references to establish notability. As written above, download sites are not reliable references. Artice was created by an SPA, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 13:06, 1 May 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,Sumsum2010·T·C 04:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources that I can find, although the name confounds the search. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 9 May 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.