Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesterdata


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yesterdata

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable software Jac 16888  Talk 17:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, lack of notability. --LexArt (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources for the software or the company. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Google search yields only download sites and developer's site. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability in reliable sources. No claim of significance either. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Preserve Yesterdata has been published in so many HIGH PR(Page Rank) Websites, such as download.com (PR=8). (wikipedia.org PR=9) It indicates that the software is safe and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmaneasy (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The softwares safety and reliability of are no relevant, what matters is how notable it is, and search rankings are no evidence of notability, since it can be easily manipulated by a professional, and since both the download.com and I'm guessing the Wikipedia page are both self-published they're no good either (and how do can you reason that it should have a Wikipedia page because it has a wikipedia page?). What is required are reliable sources from 3rd parties, and as far as I can tell there are none-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:11, 22 October 2012 (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.