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.
Not notable, doesn't claim to be notable, no references
Miami33139 (
talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete No claim made for notability, no 3rd party sources.
LK (
talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Defunct software, but worth documenting for historical record.
LotLE×
talk 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Please base that statement on our
notability criteria, not personal feelings. Without references, there is no historical record.
Miami33139 (
talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ron Ritzman (
talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete- seems to be fairly run-of-the-mill software with no notability either asserted or demonstrated. We are not a directory of every bit of software ever written.
ReykYO! 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete fails the notability guidelines.
Themfromspace (
talk) 01:30, 22 February 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.