Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pdf ocr
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. Courcelles 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pdf ocr[edit]
- Pdf ocr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG; borderline WP:SPAM; speedied 3 times as PDF OCR, deleted on expired prod once under this uncapitalised spelling. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; sole WP:Secondary source is a review on Softpedia, which tries to maintain an exhaustive catalogue of freeware and shareware, and is therefore not a reliable indicator of notability. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability has not been established, fails WP:GNG, and the only reference that is not a primary source is a website that hosts a mirror download, not a reliable third-party source. - SudoGhost 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's already listed on the list of OCR software and doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable for its own page. Several Times (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That list-of page (as usual for them) is a listing of wikipedia pages, so the entry there hinges on this AFD rather than being an alternative if the discussion here fails to establish own-article worthiness. DMacks (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that some entries in list-of pages may be sufficiently unique and notable to be compared to others of their ilk but not notable enough to have their own pages. That may be the case here - I'm not sufficiently familiar with variations in OCR software to determine whether this software stands out, or even whether anyone uses it. Several Times (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mis-reading. I patrol List of PDF software, which also points to the article in question, which has an explicit scope of "actual articles". List of optical character recognition software does not have any such explicit limitation. DMacks (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that some entries in list-of pages may be sufficiently unique and notable to be compared to others of their ilk but not notable enough to have their own pages. That may be the case here - I'm not sufficiently familiar with variations in OCR software to determine whether this software stands out, or even whether anyone uses it. Several Times (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That list-of page (as usual for them) is a listing of wikipedia pages, so the entry there hinges on this AFD rather than being an alternative if the discussion here fails to establish own-article worthiness. DMacks (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per Nom, been deleted and re-posted with no changes enough times. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. noq (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack notable coverage, as I didn't see any on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 10 August 2011 (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.