- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Radmin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is mostly promotional in context and seems to be written mostly for promotional purposes. Contains very little to none in any relevant or encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 17:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 19:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ( talk) 19:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Waaaay too promotional in tone and presentation. TH1980 ( talk) 02:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: There is nothing notable about the product. Too promotional, as per nomination. RetiredDuke 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.