- 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Advanced Dork: (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. This is a Mozilla Firefox extension. There is nothing notable about it that I can see, and the subject has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a very useful tool to show notability (or lack thereof) in Wikipedia articles. It sounds as if I need to add the references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your !vote. Please do not conflate WP:USEFUL with notability. We require reliable third party sourcing for this and any other subject we cover. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Can't see significant coverage. Just because it might seem useful, doesn't make it notable. LoudHowie (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.