Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/File Access Manager
- 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. Brandon (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File Access Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:BEFORE, WP:N. A simple Google search reveals one third of a million (not a typo) Ghits: [1], and dozens on Google scholar: [2] as well as Google Books: [3]. Alternately, merge into File locking or Microsoft software. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't point me to WP:BEFORE when I searched for sources before the nomination. Google hits do not show notability. I would never have expected to see a !vote from an admin based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Before is a much abused slight. Don't devalue it for when it's actually needed. I have no doubt that Joe did due diligence before nominating. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google search: Download sites. Google News and Google Books: Doesn't even mention this software. So why do you want this kept? Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no slight or offense intended. Normally, I don't use the Google test by itself, but in all that smoke, there must be some fire. If not kept, as I stated before, please merge the content into the other software articles, as the information itself is useful. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't point me to WP:BEFORE when I searched for sources before the nomination. Google hits do not show notability. I would never have expected to see a !vote from an admin based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable as a proper noun. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Garbage there is nothing useful here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- 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.