Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria Auditor

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuria Auditor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party references since creation in 2005, no claim of notability as a product. PROD was removed a few weeks ago asking for time to provide more refs; hasn't happened. The company page was PRODed a month ago. A new article can replace it if it can be sourced, but until then I suspect this doesn't belong here. David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only 1 independent ref, the 2009 SCMagazine article. A search turned up forum posts and sites with download links, but no additional significant WP:RS coverage; one ref is not sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; no RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any reliable third party sources to demonstrate notability. We are not supposed to keep articles which have no third party sources as it compromises WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2016 (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.