Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djay (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   keep. X clamation point  04:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Djay (software)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable commercial software, unreferenced, no assertion of notability, written like an advertisement. Original article was started by a user now banned indefinitely for sockpuppeting. GreyCat (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- advertisement. Reyk  YO!  01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete Advertisement. If this article is to be kept someone who has used the software should rewrite it. T-H
 * Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – article has been largely rewritten to include references and be less of an advertisement TripleF (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — given rewrite by TripleF, I'm more inclined to keep this article. I still doubt it's notability, but at least it's shown to be sourced by some magazines' reviews. --GreyCat (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - again, notability is probably still a problem, but at least it's sourced from secondary, independent sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly, as aforementioned lacking notability, but has been re-written and appears to be notable in the least. – Alex43223T 11:02, 12 December 2008 (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.