- 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. My original prod reason was "advertisement for non-notable software". It was de-prodded with the edit summary "It's not an advertisement , Also the disadvantages are specified Otherwise it would concern also the UPx article." and then re-prodded with the reason "This is an ad, PECompact, Aspack and a few others were removed too." I think it still qualifies to be deleted. Kusma (討論) 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as failing WP:V. Google gives 4 hits: Its article on Wikipedia, this page, and two on the software's own site, which is non-notable by any standard under WP:N. (I assume you are proposing it be deleted as WP:SPAM? You don't make this clear in the nom)Yomanganitalk 16:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Haakon 16:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. Michael Kinyon 06:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I also recommend to merge useful content of UPX (currently on {{prod}}) into Executable compression and delete Category:EXE packers completely. UPX is good and quite known and could be menationed as an example of packer in the overview article but WP should not be another Freshmeat. Pavel Vozenilek 00:23, 12 September 2006 (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.