Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllMyNotes Organizer


 * 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

AllMyNotes Organizer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy and PROD. Another article similar to this one was already speedied as G11, but the author seems intent on keeping this one. ArcAngel (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 26Sept, User:Frytskyy: I'm doing my best to make it look as trualy neutral. If you can, please help, if something needs correction, you are very welcome to edit is as you like, rather then mark this page as ready for deletion. Please be constructive. I really don't see difference of this article and these two articles that appear to be ok - Evernote and reQall. Please review this article, I sincerely hope that now it should not be an object to deletion after my recent changes. Also please not that this software is really new, it was released for testing Beta only yesterday, please allow some time to more refferences appear to it, I'm working on it really hard.
 * Speedy delete per A7 as neutrality is a moot point where no notability has been established, and creator's explanation above make it rather unlikely this is notable at the moment. Besides, I just blocked his account as spam-only and speedied the article about the softwre company. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as non-notable app and spam. Laurent (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as non-notable app and spam. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete No evidence of notability (A7). Steven Walling 19:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow delete because A7 is inapplicable to software. Nonetheless, while WP:GHITS is not a particularly strong argument, having a grand total of 4 non-WP ghits is a bit...too much. Fails WP:N. Tim Song (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Again the strict interpretation of CSD fails in the case of an obvious delete. Lack of sources and the initial reaction are enough for delete. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2009 (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.