Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhiteCrane


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WhiteCrane

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

Originally prod'd for not being notable or having any third party reliable sources. prod removed because Other stuff exists. 16x9 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- 16x9 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - As the remover of the PROD, I noted in my summary "I don't see what makes this one less notable", which was a quick test in my mind as to notability. Obviously, this isn't the absolute, or even an indicative test, but it made me want some discussion around the deletion, if only to highlight other candidates for deletion. I do not feel particularly strongly either way, so have remained neural. Ian ¹³  /t  22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of CMS articles were recently nominated and at least a couple got deleted for lacking any sources whatsoever (with non found) I did find this but that won't help at all with writing a balanced neutral article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Ripoff report is unlikely to represent any sort of balanced reporting. I really can't find anything else about this CMS. -- 01:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per notability and WP:OTHERSTUFF -> WP:INN. tedder (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment is there any evidence as to how widely used this software package is? -Drdisque (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable subject. Even a speedy might be appropriate as there is not even a claim to notability here. --Boston (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, though unfortunately software can't be speedied. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:46, 16 March 2009 (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.