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. Hut 8.5 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossvision[edit]

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

non-notable software product. Has had multiple tags on it for almost a full year, but has seen minimal improvement. Not quite blatant spam, so not a speedy, but still has a vaguely promotional tone to it. Lankiveil (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- nn software. Fails WP:NOTE per, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article fails to address this issue. Also looks pretty spammy to me too. The creator of this article could have included information on this software at the parent company article. Perhaps a redirect is in order? Sting_au Talk 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jfire (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've never heard of it. Deb (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (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.