Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AccDC Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AccDC

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. czar ⨹ 21:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AccDC

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

Articles author has conflict of interest as the developer of the subject, article lacks 3rd party sources and is not written in an encyclopedic fasion, rather as an advertisement or manual. Article previously proposed for deletion twice, each time cleared of the proposal by the original author. David Condrey ^{log talk} 22:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 20:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Seems not to have any significant news coverage, so does not meet standard notability. Spshu (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable per nom. A search turns up nothing, and the article doesn't have enough to support notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:44, 5 January 2015 (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.