- 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. MBisanz talk 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WebDevStudio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article content originally take from [1] and [2] - the official website of the product - naturally this content is not neutral, designed to promote the product. Appears to fail the general notability guideline, I can't find any sources which cover the software in-depth (or in english). Additionally the article appears to have been created by the owner of the product's website, which betrays a strong conflict of interest. – Toon(talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've stubbed this. Doesn't appear to be any less notable than many software articles. However, main contributor definitely does need to appreciate policies on conflict of interest, instruction manual content and advertising. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I can't find any evidence of notability or coverage in reliable, external sources and there are none provided in the article. Did you find some sources? I'd be happy to withdraw if there's evidence of notability. :) – Toon(talk) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (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) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article lacks sources establishing the notability of the software. The use of 'would' in the article suggests that the software might not be complete. Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to draw conclusions based on wording choice - the project's website proclaims right at the top that it's in beta. Nothing useable as a reliable source jumped out at me from a casual google search, though I admit I didn't look very hard - unrelated site webdevstudios.com has apparently put a lot of effort into seo, and I have to be extremely dubious of a webapp-based application development package that's hosted on a personal account at university anyway. The sourceforge site stats aren't impressive either; excluding spikes on the 3rd (first afd listing) and 8th (relist) that are probably us, they're getting about 5 hits a day, which leads me to suspect nobody else knows the project exists either. Delete unless someone presents reliable third-party coverage. —Korath (Talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable using wikipedia for advertisement. 16x9 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (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.