- 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. Courcelles 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ScreenClue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Software without claim to notability. The only third-party reference is this review which does not appear to be a reliable source. bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Softsea is a review and download site with no indication of what sort of editiral policy is followed in product selection and reviewing. I don;t really see it as a reliable sources, and in any case, it's the only sourcing that is present, and I could find no other. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article lacks references to reliable 3rd party sources needed to establish notability. Softsea review does not appear to be a reliable 3rd party source. Dialectric (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2010 (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.