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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved any distinct content from RDFaCE-Lite into RDFaCE (there wasn't much). If anyone wants to keep RDFaCE, RDFaCE-Lite could be redirected. I also added a little bit to RDFa#Web-based_RDFa_editors such that both could be redirected there if anyone deems appropriate. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
weak keep I've converted one to a redirect and created an appropaite talk page for the other. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant RS coverage to establish notability - refs provided are to a wordpress version of the software and to pages directly associated with the project. Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Trusilver 07:58, 22 July 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.