Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batch files renamer

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batch files renamer

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

Promotional article about a non-notable shareware utility. Its only claims to fame are one obscure award and five stars given by one user on a download site. Contested prod. Fails WP:GNG. andy (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, i am agree with you that this software is new,but i used that software and i like it, so i just want to share a software which works perfectly to Rename multiple Files. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.58.139.63 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) — 120.58.139.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - no reliable 3rd party refs to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA with same name as company, so likely spam/promotional Dialectric (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you can delete this page from Wikipedia,but one thing i want to say that i have not created this account for Promotion of this software,as i said before i just want to share a good software which works perfectly to Rename multiple Files. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.179.132.3 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BrotherSoft.com Added Batch File Renamer in Recommended Download.I think that Brothersoft.com is a reliable Source.What you think Guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.58.137.50 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not really have any relieble sources (only reference claims to be a review but actually appears to be a download link). Untill more 3rd party sources are available, I'd say this whould go, it feels like it's just an ad. As a ide note, if it is kept, the reviews section need to state reactions to the program and source the reviews, not just link to them. Millermk90 (talk) 05:21, 3 December 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.