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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I see no notability here at all for this product. The blogs given as a reference are hardly enough, and a close look reveals that there is less than meets the eye: 1. appears to be submitted by the company, and it comes via the blog in 5. Both are brief mentions. 2. also comes via 5., and is brief. 3. merely lists what the company has on its website. 4. is just as brief. In short, the product is not notable and I propose that we delete it. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Steven Walling 04:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment user:Blue.eyed.girly appears to have been adding links to this article from quite a range of wikipedia articles.©Geni 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's how I got to this one. Thanks--feel like cleaning them up? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB. Article is likely spam for the website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:04, 22 November 2009 (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.