Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDF Sign&Seal (2nd nomination)

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Sign&Seal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article makes no particular claim for notability for this software and leans towards being an advertorial in tone. The references included are product reviews which appear based on Ascertia's own press releases or simple product release statements which appear to do nothing to demonstrate notability against WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. My own search on GNews archives finds nothing but an Ascertia press release and I find one tangential mention in GBooks in someone's short how-to Virtual Accounting guide in Dutch.

The previous AFD was for a much shorter version but concluded with deletion for similar reasons. Fæ (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some coverage in reviews so I'm begrudingly stopping short of a G4 speedy, but such a horrible bit of spamvertising that even if these reviews are considered to be independent reliable coverage, there's nothing non-neutral in the article worth saving. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HASREFS I have updated the article and improved the quality of few links and added one (top ten reviews). Reference 2,4 & 7 are independant articles. Mwahaj —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Of those references 2 is by a second party, 4 leads to an instance of a cookie-cut product review (as seen on A B C D), and the same for 7 (with cookies A B C D). The only "reviews" A and B are still minimal and unreliable - frankie^MR (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage by reliable sources and spam - frankie^MR (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HASREFS See reference 4 which is pretty detailed. I have further improved the page Mwahaj —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note, you should not repeat your Keep opinion, if you have additional comments or updates these can be added to the original discussion thread or you make it clear this is just a note by starting a new line with Comment. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fringe software, Adobe makes an almost identical program for the same thing. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References appear to be submitted for listing and bear similarity to software listings on download sites. Agree, this article is promotional in nature.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references do not meet threshold of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources; created by an SPA so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2011 (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.