Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDFlib


 * 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 &mdash; arguments for keeping article do not address valid concerns regarding a failure to satisfy notability guidelines. --Haemo 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PDFlib

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 talk 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google only has 1.230.000 hits for "pdflib"; it's the software used for producing pdf from webservers. Do you even know what you are talking about?--Oneiros 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Ghits != notability.--Isotope23 talk 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The name "pdflib" was used for at least one other proprietary PDF library. Many projects can employ such a name for unrelated software. Pavel Vozenilek 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep common library for PDF creation. 132.205.44.5 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.  -- KTC 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that notability, not popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. shoy  22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Slight Delete I strongly disagree with MANY of Istopes23's recent AfDs and PRODs of PDF software, but this seems like a nonnotable spamvertisement. --Karnesky 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does have 70 hits each on google books and google news. Someone might want to scour these for WP:RS. --Karnesky 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite fine for notability. • Lawrence Cohen  20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: PDFlib library was considered as the best PDF generating library (five years ago in a SW company that worked on a document management system). However, the current article has almost no encyclopedical value and talks about a non-notable company . The library may be mentioned in some overview article, there's no need to list every company on WP (that's what planetpdf and similar sites are for). Pavel Vozenilek 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful today when seeking PDF technology overview. Yes content is thin but link to company alone adds value to Wikipeida.  Conrad T. Pino 19:05, 19 September 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.