- 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. Shimeru (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EventPilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable iPhone software for which I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:N. The anonymous user who contested the PROD answered the call for reliable sources with a link to the software's website. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In all fairness, something went wrong with my PROD message, I didn't really mean for the whole message to be "reliable sources]]"! Glenfarclas (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EventPilot is mentioned directly on the Learning Solutions 2010 iTunes connect page just under description: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/learning-solutions-2010/id359539674?mt=8# As for deletion, this article does not qualify for the statement below in the "deletion policy"
Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
The article states the existence and the "relevant" features of the product (in the same way RoboHelp does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RoboHelp). There are a multitude of examples of software products with wikipedia articles that are not used for advertising or spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.52.14 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 10 April 2010 (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.