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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tampermonkey[edit]

Tampermonkey (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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this passes the notability guideline. It's one of the most popular software of it's kind and has articles that are written by non-affiliated press. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Doesn't have much in-depth coverage, but 9to5Google has an article where it is in focus, and it has multiple minor mentions in larger sources such as Forbes and The Verge. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9to5Google is a biased source towards Google. Source should be independent to pass WP:GNG/WP:NPRODUCT. Also, mentions in Forbes and The Verge don't add much as WP:SIGCOV is required. Störm (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2019 (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.