- 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. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MyPaint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We shouldn't have a consensus for deeming most FOSS as notable. No assertion of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any reliable sources which would support this program's inclusion. I also agree that being FOSS shouldn't be taken as automagically conferring notability. Crafty (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability not established. (Verges on Speedy Delete A7: no attempt to establish notability.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, no attempt to reference it and claim notable. Miami33139 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability is not established here. Thank god we don't have a bunch of "WP:IAR" hand wavers this time around and can delete this cleanly. JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 29 September 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.