Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copy (software)


 * 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. Secret account 19:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has only two sources that are not on the software developer's site - one of them is to 'OMG! Ubuntu!', a blog. The other on storagenewsletter.com, is a repost of a press release and is not independent. These are not the multiple reliable sources that are required. This article does not meet the general notability guideline or the guideline on software and should be deleted. This was PRODed with a request for more sources, but that was removed by a SPA with no sources added, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - At best deserves one or two sentences in the Barracuda Networks company article. Clearly too early to be independently notable from the company. So far the company article did not even mention it (update: added one line). So not enough to even be considered a merge. W Nowicki (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

2013-07-25: I've updated the page with some more information, and was able to cite a few more third-party sources, specifically a technical conversation on the Qt Framework Mailing List, as well as an article on Android Central. User: Thomas Hunter II —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The title is quite generic and so the page gives undue weight to a particular instance. Warden (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (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.