Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CardRecovery


 * 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. I think its clear that the sources are not sufficiently substantial, & there's no point in relisting further.  DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

CardRecovery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage found. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - in addition to the NY Times ref mentioned in the article, I found a mentions in the Seattle Times, here as well as passing mentions in a number of photography books. These appear to be only passing mentions.  However, the fact the subject has attracted the attention of some mainstream publication suggests there may be more? Pit-yacker (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The New York Times article is a Question and Answer (not sure if it's an advice column) article from page B7 that lists at least 4 other programs which tellingly do not have articles of their own. This is a passing mention in an article. The Seattle Times one is the same way. Here's the extent of its discussion in the article: "Or you might want to check out the following sites: [this subject's website], [website 2],[website 3]." Incidentally they forgot to put a space after their comma. Shadowjams (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The NYT and Seattle Times articles are comprised of passing mentions of this topic, and after searches, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:44, 29 February 2012 (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.