Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashspring


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 12:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Flashspring

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Software with no evidence of notability (as defined by WP:SOFTWARE). Article cites no sources. Conscious 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote according to Guidelines for writing about software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOFTWARE), without advertising or subjective points of view, only provided short info about oCPS Labs company and one of its products, FlashSpring.
 * Actually, today i found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulate and didn't find a big difference between Articulate page and FlashSpring page. So far, i think propose for deletion to be doubtful, but still accept it.
 * I'll appreciate your assistance and point of view.
 * Sergeysid 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Would someone please add links to published reviews of this software? --Eastmain 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thank you Eastmain, it seems some links are added. What is the next step? A word from Conscious? -- Sergeysid 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete advert. WP != free advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, WP != free advertising, i didn't even mean it. When you state a fact, people name it advertising; when you write about something which is your own, people call it advertising. What if i wanted to give people more choice about their search? If Conscious also thinks my FlashSpring article in WP to be an ad, ok, i'll remove it and try to make a better piece - it's your kingdom and your rules -- Sergeysid 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Doesn't seem terribly notable, and the company that created it definitely isn't notable.  Probably doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE. No prejudice against recreation in the future if more notability is attained. Carolfrog 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the references establish notability. Since the article is now NPOV, I don't think it's an advertisement. --Eastmain 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll appreciate if someone tells me what's next? The article can be at WP or not? Sergeysid 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The outcome of this discussion will be determined by an administrator soon. Conscious 11:53, 5 March 2007 (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.