- 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. Tone 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Zetadocs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to me to fail notability criteria; virtually all sources are directly linked to the product's manufacturer. There is a single independent source, a 2005 review from PC Advisor, but to my mind this doesn't rise past the bar of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Bringing it here for discussion. MastCell Talk 05:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. Advertisement (provides a range of solutions to organizations) for more non-notable office software. Reviews of releases, written roughly concurrently with the release, do not necessarily establish significant effects on history, culture, or technology, unless they also establish that the products rise so far above the run of the mill that they have long term historical notability. Nothing here makes such a case for this software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 22 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.