Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CutePDF


 * 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   speedy keep. per SK1 (Nom withdrawn) - I never usually close this way but had Dialectric & Boleyn been awake I'm sure they'd of changed there !vote so going out on a limb & speedy keeping it. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

CutePDF

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear notability of what is described as "adware" on list of PDF software and its talk page. Be..anyone (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Ref provided is a how-to article, and only a single independent ref is insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no further singnificant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find anything to establish its notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as surprisingly does pass GNG, Not sure how I never found naff all but there we go . – Davey 2010 Talk 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include:, , , , , . North America1000 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

❌, one sentence with eight references is an acceptable stub. Non-admin close as withdrawn isn't possible at the moment, because two contributors supported the deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Copied in essence wholesale as references. I'd really like some references for the malware issue better than lots of the usual "software exists" sites like PC World (2 of 3 kept). –Be..anyone (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here are a few articles:  from PC World about CutePDF Writer;  from PC World about CutePDF Professional;  from PC World about CutePDF Form Filler;  from The Washington Post about CutePDF Writer;  from CNET about CutePDF Writer;  from Chip.de about CutePDF Writer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Chip ignored, it triggered some "German" tracking category and won't offer new insights above the PC World reviews, Washington Post FAQ added, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - fwiw in the world of patenting, cutepdf is pretty well known b/c it always generates pdfs that the USPTO's e-filing website (which is very picky) will accept, per:
 * instructions from USPTO
 * a patent blog
 * patent law blog Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching patent stuff unless I must, please add it to the article if you think it's good. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging &  to make them aware of the sources provided. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:25, 14 April 2015 (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.