Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aceromath

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 Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aceromath

Contested prod. No indication of notability, entirely written by account with the same name as the producing company. Spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability whatsoever, clear COI issues (if not intentional spam). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable --Cradel 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is supplied. -- Atlant (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that software is one of the few things a Google test actually tends to work on. Aceromath brings up Aceromath and User:Thenetcentinell and some sourceforge/mirror sites. "The Net Centinell" (the entity that published or created this software) brings up Aceromath and User:Thenetcentinell and a hoard of (mostly Spanish) linux/programming/etc forums. It even says it was written "for a course of engineering." Don't forget that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I'd say that such generally includes things you make up for your homework. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notability; digging by Cheeser1 suggests WP:Or issues as well. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously (I say that rarely), Cenarium (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no significant coverage (10 Google hits on aceromath -wikipedia, 0 on Google News, 0 on Google Blogsearch – no one's even blogging about this!), which suggests the software lacks any notability. Although I must say I was impressed by the use of the verb "to graphicate". --Sturm 10:32, 16 February 2008 (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.