Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlowStone DSP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FlowStone DSP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, just released, software product. No third party refs are provided or could be found to indicate any form of notability. The page started off as a pure advert - which was unsurprising as it was a copyvio of the product homepage. It's been toned down a little but is still non-neutral, and focuses only on the product (and its claimed benefits) rather than anything more encyclopedic. The images are also those from the product website and have been uploaded by the author of the article as their own work, so there appears to be a conflict of interest. Speedy deletion nomination (as spam) contested. I42 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seem to lack independent coverage and the (completely unreferenced) benefits section dwarfs the (also completely unreferenced) one-line "criticism" section. I WP:AGF that this article is a genuine attempt at writing an encyclopedic entry, but the result is still mere promotion of a product. Pcap ping 19:41, 8 May 2010 (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.