Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Colors (software)

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. AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, but unsupported, unexplained opinions that an article should be kept are without persuasive value in determining WP:CONSENSUS, and idle speculation that reliable sources could be added by someone is insufficient to rebut the claim that no such sources can be found. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Colors (software)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass the GNG; no high quality sources found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article should be kept. Independent sources are what would make the article better. Interlude 65 17:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — if seriously noticeable improvements have not been made by the time this AfD closes. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve Well, why don't we get some users to help improve this article??? That would really help me out here!!! Interlude 65 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand the frustration of doing the work to create an article and then having it sent to articles for deletion. I am voting delete because topic notability on Wikipedia is determined by available significant coverage in reliable sources. After several searches, I just haven't found any coverage in reliable sources for this software product; this includes searches for software reviews. In the future, you may want to consider creating an article in your user sandbox, and then publish it in Wikipedia's mainspace (where articles are displayed) after the topic is backed by significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this discussion closed or not? Interlude 65 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions typically occur for seven days. There's also the possibility that other users may find reliable sources for the topic during this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still think this article should be kept. Maybe someone will finally add higher quality sources to the article. By the way, it's already been five days since this discussion has been going on, and no one has added any new messages to it. Interlude 65 02:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, shall we Keep or Delete this article? This discussion will close TOMORROW, so we better decide fast before time runs out! Interlude 65 14:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the closing administrator decides the issue is unclear, s/he will probably relist the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable to be found anywhere. Further, not much of anything notable on the company that makes it. If a company isn't notable, it kinda follows that their products aren't either. As an aside, one might ask, if this software "has been one of Magic Mouse's most successful products", then why is it "considered abandonware"? Just sayin...Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you guys know, in the article I deleted the abandonware part. Interlude 65 21:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, does this mean that the article will actually be deleted since Delete got the most votes here? Interlude 65 21:39, 3 June 2012 (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.