Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRestorer


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

IRestorer

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

Nomination: Non-notable software product. Spamish, as it references only a download site. I scanned 100 top Google hits, finding only download sites, forums, blogs, and the ubiquitous Wikipedia. None of the blogs appear to reference reliable sources. History: Previously deleted six times (under two names). Current incarnation was an admin repost with PROD after a SPEEDY delete deemed too hasty. PRODs were removed from current and previous incarnations without explanation. Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability of a freeware product can be hard to find even when it exists, or I could have missed the obvious. Discussion here may turn up something the SPA working on the article has not included. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No Google Code references. No news references. Per nom, no real independent Google hits. Could be speedied as spam. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as G4 as commercial. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * G4 doesn't apply, this hasn't been to AFD before. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * G11 — That's the criterion the above user meant, and also what I believe should happen as this is spam. MuZemike (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, unsourced; maybe not quite promotional enough for a G11 (but close). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - in its current form I don't think it's a G11 at all. It is, however, not notable - zero WP:RS hits that I found. Given the frequent recreation suggest allowing AfD to run its course. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  18:33, 27 August 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.