Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FAXCOM

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. WjBscribe 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAXCOM

FAXCOM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is exactly the kind of thing that does not qualify as being blatantly promotion. It's so short and dry it couldn't promote anything. However, it does appear to be largely non-notable software. -Splash - tk 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability. It is possible the parent company qualifies, but I do not feel their software does. FrozenPurpleCube 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I tried searching for press coverage at Google news archive. After attempting to filter out press releases and the like (the Winnepeg filter is to eliminate some bogus-looking newspaper links) I mostly just found press releases and articles about things other than the software. I didn't see anything that looked like actual analysis or review of the software. And certainly there aren't any appropriate sources linked in the actual article. —David Eppstein 00:12, 15 April 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.