Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DFMPro


 * 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. The consensus is that there is insufficient cause to consider this software to be notable in itself. I note that it is listed in the products in the Geometric Limited article but no details are given there - perhaps a sentence could be added to that?  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 03:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DFMPro

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable software product. References are all advertisements or press releases. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete per nomination. Also promoting yet another software services and consulting company. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note The following was added to the page in a comment by "sorry I don't know much about how to discuss about deletion of this article. This page is created by me Chan prashant. There are comments given by administrator that all the references are from press releases. Hence I am sighting some new references for your kind consideration.Especially from some CAD magazines where authors have reviwed it."(See this diff.) OSbornarfcontribs. 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Desktop Engineering magazine is a reliable source and most of this review is about DFMPro, so I'd say it meets WP:N. A second reliable source would be nice. --Pnm (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep - I'm one of those who thinks that publicly traded companies are notable (a de facto notability, if not a de jure notability). --B (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about a company. --Pnm (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete due to lack of substantial coverage, although the parent company could be listed. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2011 (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.