Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R4U

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 of the debate was delete. Although Aguerriero (talk · contribs) did a good job re-writing the article, it seems AfD still isn't too impressed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R4U[edit]

I am the anon who protested (I removed the message because I didn't know how to protest -- I'm still finding my way around here, friends). I created the page because I wanted to give a link to the product download URL. If it violates Wikipedia policy, please delete the page. As for "strangely" not contesting the companion article, that was because I had not checked to see if it was listed for deletion.

Prod contested by anon (who strangely didn't contest the companion R4U Multilingual-English-Tamil-Telugu article). Advertising for non-notable product via a non-notable website. Opabinia regalis 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum despite the recent rewrite by Aguerriero, I'm sticking with the nomination; it's better now but still makes no claims to notability, and sounds like a software plug (I won't say 'ad' since it's apparently free.) Opabinia regalis 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Prod contested by anon" is a phrase that should never appear in an AfD nomination. PROD is supposed to be contested if anyone, logged-in or not, thinks the article is worth keeping. Complaining about it on AfD is sad. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 01:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, reads like an advert.--Andeh 01:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like an advertisement, is not notable, and needs wikifying. Heltec talk
Delete, advertising, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert for non-notable software. - Motor (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement, nn Nearly Headless Nick 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. MaxSem 17:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify, source and keep. Why not, it seems like a notable software after all. //Halibu tt 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have re-written the article, added the software infobox, wikified, etc. I encourage participants to review the changes and revisit their votes. Aguerriero (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see the old version, but the new one lacks notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, you are cold! :P Folajimi 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Nice article. Non-notable software. Eluchil404 11:44, 11 June 2006 (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.