Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycia (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   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Lycia (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable commercial software, barely mentioned anywhere except the company website. The search of Google books, news and scholar for the combination of "Lycia" and "4GL" (Lycia a tool for 4GL programmers) returns nothing meaningful. Doesn't meet WP:N (or WP:NSOFT) criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia. ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note the related deletion discussions: --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LyciaStudio
 * LyciaBI
 * Querix
 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.  I also Googled and found nothing useful.  Msnicki (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unambiguous advertising and about computers: a complete 4GL development environment.... employs the 'AAA Concept'... . It is as simple, readable and easy-to-learn as possible, while still being a high-level-syntax language designed for modern busines applications.... offers easy and on-demand access to networks sharing configurable computing resources that can be swiftly provided and distributed with minimal administration effort. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Another ad masquerading none too convincingly as an article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads as Advertisement; only website is company's own, not notable.Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2011 (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.