- 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ImpressPages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about an open source product that's only three weeks old and still in alpha release. No Google news hits. Article contains no secondary sources at all. Lots and lots of advertising & peacock. Yes, it exists—but it doesn't appears to (yet) be notable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:43, 5 October 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) 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)ImpressPages[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in non-primary sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (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.