Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land F/X


 * 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. While less spammy, consensus seems to be that it's also not notable. TravellingCari 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Land F/X

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

This has already been speedied twice as spam, and looks to me to be hopelessly and un-clean-uppably biased. That said, I know nothing (to say the least) about landscape architecture software; maybe this is the Microsoft Word of the landscaping world. Bringing it over to get a consensus either way. –  iride scent  22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment: I have done a bit of clean up on the article (removed most of the spammy bits and added a few sources) but WP:N issues remain. - Icewedge (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Much less spammy now, and one marginal reference. Anecdotally it looks like a product with a certain level of a following, but I'd like to see at least one solid review or writeup. Arakunem Talk 17:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Those references seem very marginal. The blog surely is. I've never heard of LandscapeOnline.com, but I'm not familiar with this type of software. If anyone can provide input on the notability of the site hosting the review, please comment. VG &#x260E; 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LandscapeOnline.com seems reliable enough for this purpose but it still doesn't seem enough for notability concerns. --  Banj e  b oi    19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a specialized software for landscape architects. i have no reason to disbelieve the homepage of the company which indicates that its presented to students specializing in this rather focussed field. I suggest merge to landscape architect if no trade papers or business media sources are sourced. --  Banj e  b oi    22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidbooks (talk • contribs)
 * delete


 * Delete Although, as many users have said, the article is less "spammy" I cannot find (though google, google books or google news) any reliable references to verify the claims made in the article (I don't think the sources in the article are reliable either). Because of these factors, I believe that the article fails general notability guidelines. — ^.^ &#91;citation needed&#93; 12:04, 25 September 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.