Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerFolder (2nd nomination)
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 June 30. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- PowerFolder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficiently notable software program. Previously nominated for AfD over three years ago, which barely resulted in "keep", but no significant improvements since and article still does not meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. Specifically, this program has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Satori Son 14:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable product; Google News seems to find only press releases and announcements of newly released versions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I'm sorry, but the sources that saved the article in 2006 are insufficient. However, I found this. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a three sentence review --- generally favorable, but mentioning an ugly interface --- in a general column about synching files. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some work, but not unlike 60 percent or more of most Wiki tech articles. = // = Proxy User (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking comment of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:WiccaWeb. jæs (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2010 (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) 00:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, passing references and press releases do not establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2010 (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.