- 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) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WeBid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable beta software. I declined a CSD nomination simply because A7 specifically doesn't cover software; otherwise I would have deleted it. Frank | talk 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. Also fails WP:N. Beano (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Badly fails WP:N and because it is only a couple of days old I smell vanity. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Per nom with the above WP:N. Vanity, test edits, too recent, not long enough, hoax, picture in infobox is external (not allowed) and claims that it is created by an individual (suspicious name, looks like a spinoff of 'Charles Dickens' and no article about him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Æåm Fætsøn (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Blatantly fails WP:N AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as an advert (G11?) for new software. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mostly per nom; as it's still a beta, it definitely fails WP:N Firebat08 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WeDelete because it fails WP:N, as stated. JBsupreme (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as WP:PROMOTION. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:39, 30 October 2008 (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.