Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblioscape


 * 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 as verifable, with many possible reliable sources. Cleanup of advertising terms is not a reason to delete, but to clean up. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Biblioscape

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Spammy, and has no claim to notability. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 01:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Clearly some people have taken note of it (in reliable sources), which should make it notable in theory, but in practise... I'm not totally convinced.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm obviously missing something here. I got 8,000+ ghits on "CG Information" + Biblioscape. This included a bunch of reviews. If needed, it would be real easy to add more external links. It may or may not be great software, but it appears to be significant software. And, in truth, the article doesn't even seem especially spammy - no claims to greatness (or even adequacy). Tim Ross ·talk  17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with above. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As an appreciative user I want this software/company to be known and stable as a result. -- AW 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.158.118 (talk)
 * Keep I agree with some of the comments that have been made here already. I don't see why this isn't a notable software product. The article describes the program in what appears to me to be a neutral fashion. It is included in Comparison of reference management software, where it is shown to be one of the few products that interfaces with WordPerfect (which should make it notable within the field). It is a good products well. Yehuda Falk (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep but please add sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2007 (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.