Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal FLOW

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal FLOW

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

This software is not covered in an reliable sources, and as such fails to meet notability guidelines. Whpq (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has been tagged up for citations for almost a year. Appears as a clandestine advertisement, espcially with this type of tone. hydrox (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising: It provides several useful features like flowcharts from source code, source code and comment formatting - for better readability, function call and caller trees with additional information, file trees, class inheritance trees, comprehensive documentation, source code metrics and premium browsing. ... Crystal FLOW can co-exist with any IDE. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I most recently recreated this article from a redirect, in order to fix links from another article. It seems clear that the software verifiably exists. Many websites seem to offer it for download, but I don't see any neutral coverage that clearly establishes notability. I agree that the article reads like an advertisement, but the current quality of the article is not directly relevant to whether there should be an article. I was going to suggest a merge with Crystal REVS, but I see that has already gone. Bovlb (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Lots of software exists, the question is whether it is notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2010 (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.