Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IzPack


 * 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines through a lack of significant coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

IzPack

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article cites two sources: the product's own website and a press release printed in a trade magazine. Neither is independent. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find any coverage. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Hue  Sat  Lum  17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * keep. IMHO it seems an important software. This hasn't been said before but it has also an interwiki link pointing to the Spanish wikipedia where no deletion is pending.--Hiddenray (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Regardless of its level of importance, it is obviously not neutral and is written like an advertisement.--b1naryatr0phy (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (babble)  20:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 08:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister   talk  05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete  WP:GNG, although    this might get us part of the way to GNG, I'm just not finding enough GNG-worthy sourcing to keep.  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:56, 28 June 2012 (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.