Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaze composer


 * 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.--Wafulz 20:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blaze composer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Software vanity. `'юзырь:mikka 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: However the article looks a lot similar to other existing softwares like NVU, Dreamweaver and Amaya. If this should be removed, then so should all others. Otherwise it is unfair. All of them seem to be written in a similar manner. Moreover, it is written in an objective manner and does not seem to be like an advertisement.


 * Keep. This software does exist.--Edtropolis 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My dog does exist as well. And a pop-up calculator written by my son. Also a good advise it to actually look into the supposed policies you are quoting.`'юзырь:mikka 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "This software does exist"? Yes, but that is irrelevant. There should NOT be a wikipedia article for every existing piece of software. The guidline you link to; Notability (software) states that software needs to be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)" in order to be notable enough that it warrants an article. I am unfamiliar with Blaze composer, but the article does not establish any notability, an therfore my vote would be to delete this article.Dr bab 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Vanity. Major contributor/creator of the article is the software developer. The software (Blaze Composer) does exist, but this article reads like an ad for the latest edition--Ispy1981 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Almost word-for-word what I intended to say. --Nonstopdrivel 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no reliable sources explaining notability. Weregerbil 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources. Looked for independent review via google and could not find anything but download links and blurbs that were taken directly from the author of the software. -- Whpq 19:09, 19 June 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.