Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon NaturallySpeaking commands

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon NaturallySpeaking commands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:NOT a manual. This is far more detail than is needed for encyclopedic coverage of the software. Toohool 18:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't even understand most of the content of this article, the list is incomplete, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT for how-to guides. ~Iceshark7 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Not a manual, no encyclopedic relevance. OSborn^arf 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not relevant to the project in the slightest --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I actually laughed reading the article (because speech recognition is in its infancy and very poor, hence why produce a list?). It is however a howto. Operating 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOT most definitly. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A suitable selected list of commands to give some ida of the function and capability of the software. Not a howto or a manual--insufficient to run the program; "not relevant" is an opinion, not an argument: explaining the function of widely used software is relevant to any contemporary encyclopedia. That one doesn't understand it is a reason to ask for expansion and explanation, not deletion. DGG (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Operating --Domthedude001 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This product is not a game, but if it were, the standard argument would be that we're NOT a game guide. Close enough. RFerreira 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No value for an encyclopedia. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a manual. JIP | Talk 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is beyond me how anyone could support the notion of including such a laughable list, but to each his own. Burntsauce 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The commands do nothing to benefit an understanding (not use, Wikipedia is not a manual) of the program, are therefore not encyclopedic with respect to their parent article, and additionally have no independent notability. This might be the first time I've completely disagreed with DGG, I surprise myself...Someguy1221 08:16, 27 September 2007 (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.