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. Majorly 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FuturixImager[edit]

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

Well, the reason for this nomination may seem strange - actually I'm the author of FuturixImager (not the author of the article). However I don't think this article is any good! Most text is taken straight from my old website: I'm not against that, but it is pointless. Futurix 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per author's request. JuJube 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't speedy delete if the subject of the article (or equivalent) requests things, only if the author of the article does that, and even then it's debatable unless the article was mistakenly created. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! In that case changing vote to Delete per you. ^_^ JuJube 07:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Yet Another Image Viewer; has claims of fame but is better off rewritten in any case if this is lifted from the website. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SOFTWARE ::mikmt 00:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above... Addhoc 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fully agreed. Fionik 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 05:13, 19 January 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.