- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SimilarWeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another non-notable Firefox extension. Damiens.rf 17:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I found a brief CNET article but wouldn't call it substantial. --Pnm (talk) 00:11, 3 February 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would say that individual Firefox addons aren't notable as a general rule, unless this are special circumstances significant mainstream-media coverage, which this doesn't seem to have. Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete opinion for this is similar to Chickenfoot (software). Firefox extensions just aren't really notable enough. Noom talk contribs 21:53, 9 February 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.