Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftXpand (3rd 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. Jujutacular (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SoftXpand

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

This article has been at AfD twice previously but there is nothing at all in the article to denote notability in that the product does not have extensive coverage from reliable third parties. There is one reference from ZDNet which is no "arms length" as it seems the company requested the product review. Both of the other AfDs closed with "No Consensus", in part because of the number of "Keep" requests but in looking at the content of the Keep requests, most quoted references such as blogs or PR releases which would not assist in denoting notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software product, as I have said in the 2nd AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no reputable coverage whatsoever. Yvarta (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial on an unremarkable product; fails GNG and good taste :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2016 (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.