Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitro PDF

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro PDF

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

This doesn't appear to be notable to me. I see a ton of passing mentions in some reliable sources on Google News and an academic journal search, but I've yet to find multiple major independent reliable sources. There's some small sources (local) but not enough to make me feel it's notable. It also reads like an advertisement or puff piece or product website, not an article. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the software was the subject of an article in the Independent, and the company was featured in the San Francisco Business Times. There are quite a few Google Books hits as well, some of which seem to discuss the software's features in some detail. Huon (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for passing WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reviewed, if not always positively, in prominent PC magazines and websites. But, short of general media visibility.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the sources provided here. However, the article needs to be cleaned-up to meet standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it is used by a lot of users worldwide. For example, CNET Downloads could be a stats detail supporting this page's existence. Compfreak7 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2013 (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.