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. v/r - TP 03:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afaria[edit]

Afaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Deleted on 7 June 2011 as an unambiguous advertising or promotion. Was nominated for CSD today for the same reasons. However, a rewrite since June has made it not quite unambiguous. RA (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability, written like an advertisement, writer is being investigated for sockpuppetry and seems to have a COI.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability, indeed. Although the criticism section gives an air of independence to the writing my (subjective) view is that the article reads like advocacy for the article's topic. Material is lacking which references third parties discussing the significance of this product in its field and making assessment. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (signing my comment about a week late!)[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.