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. --Core desat 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindows[edit]

Nominated before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows (2nd nomination). Really doesn't assert importance, meeting WP:N or WP:A. Needs to. It was kept at the second AfD basically because it gets "a lot" of Google hits.. no actual argument was made that this meets any inclusion guideline. Needs actual reliable sources. --W.marsh 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. That was easy. MrMacMan 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to tout notability, and we are not Freshmeat or Sourceforge. --Dennisthe2 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no standard for software (Wikipedia:Notability (software)) but it doesnt pass general standards like notibility or reliable external sources--Dacium 04:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google hits are no substitute for proper attribution. All the external links are self-referential and the article borders on being promotional. All of the edits since the last AfD have made it more spammy if anything and have done nothing to resolve concerns of prior AfD nominations. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like Spam Lite. Realkyhick 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Do NOT Delete. Article about a popular and innovative technology. The content is technical and educational. If articles like Adobe Flash are allowed than Bindows should be allowed as well. ronm4321 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means document that it is popular and innovative by the use of reliable secondary sources to that effect. Adobe Flash is "allowed" because the authors have adequately attributed the article with reliable sources to back up their statements - Bindows, on the other hand, has no such attribution. Neither "technical" nor "educational" are sufficient grounds for inclusion, as Wikipedia requires attribution. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bindows have an animal book? --Dennisthe2 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Arkyan and lack of sources. Wikipedia isn't Sourceforge. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2007 (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.