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 as advertisement and salt for 3 months, should have been G11'd to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSites[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability (other than usage on a few random websites); no references to non-trivial coverage, etc. Google shows 137 hits, only the first page of which has anything at all relevant; none of which would be useful as a source of notability. IMO, the majority of the article reads as promo-esque material that reads like it's been paraphrased from the company website. (PROD removed by original article author.) Oli Filth^(talk) 01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. This article sounds like a advertisement and needs clean-up. If this page is wikified, I can change my vote. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Zero Kitsune is right. This article really needs some work. I think, though, that the software in question is probably notable enough that a reasonable article can be developed. Tim Ross (talk) 10:53, 26 May 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.