Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faxrush (2nd nomination)

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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faxrush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This survived an AfD almost three years ago, when the software was new and in the news. However ghits!notability and press releases are not RS coverage. There;s no evidence of notability for this software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-29t18:42z
• Delete - unable to establish any reliable sources. Only things that could be found are press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, unreferenced advertising. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Barely qualifies as a stub article. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mentioned in published sources: http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=Faxrush . Independent sources seem to be available. --Oldak Quill 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial coverage does not establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 9 March 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.