- 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. JForget 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JSquiggle (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) 23:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BURDEN and by the description this is not going to be useful. Miami33139 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete simply isn't notabile Alan - talk 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In addition to its other problems, the description as a a peer-to-peer "scribble program" gives no context as to what this is supposed to do, and I have no idea. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't assert its notability or provide enough reliable 3rd party sources. Google doesn't turn up much in the way of WP:RS either. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JBdelete. There isn't any indicator of notability for this software. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 19 November 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.