Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eraser (software)

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eraser (software)

Eraser (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable software, just another disk wiper Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. There appear to be MANY disk cleaning utilities with the name "Eraser" in them. JRHorse 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE provided by reliable sources. MER-C 07:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please note that WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline. It is not a guideline, and it certainly is not policy. AfD discussions really should not be citing it as a reason for delete. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails to assert notability at all. Article fails to cite a reliable source which can verify anything about the software, and a brief Google search fails to find same. Wikipedia is not a directory of software. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article information has some (referenced) information, that is most likely quite useful to it's readers article. Of course it can be improved in many ways, but what we have there is still genuine and useful information. -- Karl Meier 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information is useful does not mean it qualifies as an enecyclopedia article. If the page is deleted, afterwards, if someone is willing and able to write an encyclopedia article about "Eraser", they can still do so. --—DragonHawk (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • • It actually seems that it has also attracted quite a bit of media attention, which means that a proper article can be written, and that it is notable enough for us to have an article about. Examples: article on softpedia, pcauthority.com.au, dx21.com -- Karl Meier 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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.