Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lookeen

Lookeen

Lookeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. Outside of the solitary review in PCWorld (reminder: "However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability"), all coverage seems fringe, promotional or self-published. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Article updated as it was not written about the latest version after I found several blogposts and reviews on relevant blogs and website about this software Peteroe (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Coverage seems insufficient - this program does not seem to have any larger significance.-- Elmidae (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted because several references have been added, e.g. reviews from two of the most important desktop search in the web (arnoldit.com und brianmadden.com
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peteroe (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)