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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSPseq[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. Random online blog coverage doesn't give notability. Notability comes from significant coverage by reliable sources. It being an "underground" software, web only software, etc doesn't give it a pass on the same requirements all articles must meet. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information and this particular software doesn't meet the requirements that the community have created. If reliable sources start writing about, I don't oppose recreation. Crossmr (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found to denote this software's notability (i.e. no reliable source showing substantial coverage). Jappalang (talk) 00:47, 30 August 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.