Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrefixNE (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PrefixNE

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/PrefixNE
• Articles for deletion/PrefixNE (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

PrefixNE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not a notable software product. The review at [1] reads too promotionally for GNG, and the article suffers from the same promotional issues it had a decade ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NCORP Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - I think it might actually fail on CSD grounds, but in any case, one review needs a deep link, the others fail to satisfy reliable sources (at least in their review sections). Beyond that, a company page should be made with the product as part of that, though that's secondary. WP:NCORP with its high standards, does not appear to be satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2018 (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.