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 keep. WjBscribe 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article (which I created myself) for deletion because I was unable to find relevant sources for itAli 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to withdraw an AfD nomination? I feel I can contribute to this article quite well now. --Ali 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I don't see that every day. I wasn't going to insist on it, but given the fact that there are no sources as of now, the author's request should be honored. YechielMan 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly inclined to delete it myself, I just wanted to see if other editors think it should be deleted, due to the lack of sources. --Ali 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep An exact search [1] for the software yields 18k ghits. I'd like to see more sources that meet WP:RS but not a huge deal for obviously popular software. Darkspots 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the main editor of the article, you may requested speedy delete per WP:SNOW. WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or Need help? 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you mean db-author; but now that others are interested and have sources to add, we see another example of the benefits of collaboration on a wiki. Looking at the search above, about 1 in 20 usable, but that's still a good manyDGG 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been added; the software itself is an add-on for a very widely distributed piece of software; it seems to be notable enough to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Yelllowiki.org. Widely distributed doesn't mean notable, esp. on the internet. If that tiny bit of info is all there is to say about the product, it shouldn't be here. "Depth of coverage" is as important to establishing notability as # of sources. I think it's awesome Ihcoyc jumped in to help and did good work, but I don't see how there's any way to make this Wikipedia material. Wysdom 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (Jiminy Christmas, I hate it when I forget to sign *lol*)[reply]
Keep. I added the sources myself - and I will continue to work on the article if you all believe it fits the criteria for inclusion. Thanks for the support, and I would appreciate if anyone else can add sources! --Ali 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would like to comment that if this is allowed through, it may allow other third party addons to remain in place. But the article is rather nice from my point of view. Whstchy 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, "if X article exists then should Y" is not a criteria for inclusion, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. --Ali 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote then Whstchy 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Obviously it would be nice if there were relevant sources - maybe information could be pulled from the organizations that gave it its awards? r.y.right 17:58, 29 April 2007 (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.