Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeLobster: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:20, 11 February 2022

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) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CodeLobster

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

Page continues to be without verification (WP:V) or assertion of notability (WP:N). Proposed for deletion last April; contested by User:Codelobster with no explaination or attempt to address the issue. Google search shows no News hits, and a hundred or so download sites on Web hits, none of which provide reliable, significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm aware of its mention in O'Reilly's "Windows Vista Annoyances", but it is trivial [1]. Marasmusine (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A grand total of 3 google news archives hits for the company with the same name that produces this [2], and a list-mention of another product of theirs in a book [3] is all I could find about this. There's a Softpedia review [4], but I don't give much weight to those notability-wise— the review seems pretty honest: it says: "I've seen better freeware." Pcap ping 19:34, 11 January 2010 (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.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Delete''': I can't find [[WP:N|significant coverage]] for this software. [[User:Joe Chill|Joe Chill]] ([[User talk:Joe Chill|talk]]) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Weak delete''' A grand total of 3 google news archives hits for the ''company'' with the same name that produces this [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22CodeLobster%22], and a list-mention of ''another product'' of theirs in a book [http://books.google.com/books?id=5SbK_xPgnK8C&pg=PT563&dq=%22CodeLobster%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22CodeLobster%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false] is all I could find about this. There's a [[Softpedia]] review [http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/CodeLobster-Review-37401.shtml], but I don't give much weight to those notability-wise&mdash; the review seems pretty honest: it says: "I've seen better freeware." [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|<small>ping</small>]] 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>