Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDFtypewriter


 * 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. W.marsh 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PDFtypewriter
No assertion of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE, provided links are to download.com (which does not provide the notability required) and to the software's own website. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very new to this, what information would you like added? Other software such as FreePDF is listed and IMHO is not nearly as noteable. Thank you. Ctruxaw 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Has the software been featured in detail in the press? Listing on software sites do not count. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC) - Addressing this, yes, and some links I found with google have been added to Ziff Davis, one of the larger press companies - 71.202.96.143 05:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but revise and add a lot of info (I found a bunch on Google). --Mysmartmouth 03:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it clearly meets the criteria (based on a Google search) and as far as I can tell, does not contain any misinformation. Merkuron 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no nontrivial independent reviews or sources given in the article. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a failure to meet the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE and failing to provide reliable sources as per WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. Article created by single purpose account. Encyclopedically non-notable part of notable company. Recommend Speedy Delete under new "shoot on sight" guideline as per "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" by Brad Patrick, General Counsel and Interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Bwithh 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - although that email was a cry for help, and a call to arms, there should really (IMHO) be a Criterion for SD before we do so. --Storkk 12:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... very nice... just saw CSD G11. Queue Burns: "eeeexcellent". Storkk 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:SOFT, even with those two ZDnet articles. They are not "about" this particular piece of software. --Storkk 12:06, 4 October 2006 (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.