From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Happn

Happn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This application fails WP:PRODUCT. The coverage is only trivial coverage rather than significant and independent coverage. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 23:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 13:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment. @ GeoffreyT2000: I don't have a vested interest one way or another in this article, but do you not consider a standalone article in the NYT significant coverage? -- Kbabej ( talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is a stub article, but contains sufficient secondary citations to meet the notability criteria of both WP:PRODUCT and WP:STUB in my opinion. Could do with some serious expansion, but does NOT meet the standard for deletion.
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.