Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NJDX

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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as blatant spam. JIP | Talk 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was previously deleted I think. No assertion of importance. Clearly an advertisement. Creator clearly states affiliation with corporation, thus spam. Wickethewok 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this was previously deleted, it may be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4. Royboycrashfan 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The editor was trying to repost it with added discussion, so I brought it here instead. If you think it should be speedied, speedy away. Wickethewok 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was previously deleted 3 times - twice as copyvio and once as G4 recreation. No longer a copyvio as author has given permission for use, so doesn't qualify for G4 again. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was previously deleted because of copyright issue. Now, I have provided the clarification for the copyright in the talk (discussion) page. Let me work on the NPOV issue. Thanks. Dperiwal 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Royboycrash, nom. Amcfreely 02:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the issue isn't just POV, its also the notability of the software. Also, I'd like to point out that the creator of the article is a creator of the software. Wickethewok 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisment, nn software Gu 08:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam, notability. Article even formatted as an advert. I attempted to turn it into an article, but failed and gave up because there's too much spam and not enough ham in it. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G4 as recreated material, spam, ad. --Terence Ong 13:33, 4 April 2006 (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.