Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CopyTrans

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 as non-notable. Keeper ǀ 76 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CopyTrans

Non-notable piece of freeware. External links are mere minor mentions. Nothing establishes that this software is unique, lots of users, or well, anything of importance. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Written as an ad that fails WP:RS and WP:N. The Washington Post references is a leadon that lays no mention to the software. --Pmedema (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in the entire article but a brief description of the funtionality, and cannot possibly be an advert. The Washington Post article mentions 'CopyPod', which, if you read this particular Wiki article, is stated as being the former name of the program, and therefore, counts as a mention of this program in a reputable source, meaning the article passes WP:RS. It does not however, in its current state, pass WP:N. 24.192.149.38 (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an advert? I can't see anything at all promotional in the article. Any deletion could be on grounds of non-notability, but not NPOV.78.148.71.130 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (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.