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

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 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CairoShell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

1. The article has no third-party sources currently, so fails WP:N at this point. 2. The software development has stopped in the alpha/beta phase (unusable state) for over a year without any news and update and it may be reasonably called Vaporware. Jacob-Dang 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero independent coverage, it seems. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of third-party and notable coverage. I didn't get any notable on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks even one reliable independent secondary source to support notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not for promotion WP:SOAP or a crystal ball of products that may someday become available WP:CRYSTAL. Msnicki (talk) 18:30, 23 July 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.