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 userfy to User:RaviC/Gemulator Explorer. After declining NOBW's G11 suggestion and discounting 2 WP:ILIKEIT keeps, I almost closed this as "no consensus" but it's unclear how notable those 2 forensic journals are. Userfying so RaviC can continue to work on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gemulator Explorer[edit]

Gemulator Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I only found trivial mentions for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having said that, it seems to still be recommended by two forensic journals. --RaviC (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:19, 23 January 2012 (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.