Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multivalent (browser)
- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Multivalent (browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Free software with no evidence of external notability. Not really much else to say except delete. Isotope23 talk 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very popular, and with many functions. M.V.E.i. 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One of very few free pdf libs.--Oneiros 21:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not very popular, according to this. Difficult to find independent verification of notability. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight Keep, as it is described in O'Reilly PDF hacks, Knoppix hacks, and a few others (but it is admittedly somewhat incidental). What is with the massive AfD and PRODs by Isotope23 on PDF software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnesky (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD/PRODs were basically because I became aware yesterday of a large number of PDF related articles that contain no evidence of notability and I wasn't able to independently verify them as notable. If the notability criteria can be demonstrably met here, I'd be happy to close this (and any other AFDs where sources meeting WP:N are provided) as a keep.--Isotope23 talk 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the coverage in books, the author of the program has published articles about it in peer-reviewed journals [1]. These articles have been cited by researchers other than the author. --Karnesky 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the work is notable, the papers cited, and the product widely used. DGG (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable java software [2], 22835 downloads in last year [3] mean it is relatively widespread --Mpx 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability appears to be evident based on the discussion above. Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 16 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.