Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHPOS (3rd nomination)

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. This isn't the most obvious consensus I've seen but by and large the delete !votes appear to be based on guidelines and policy. That does not appear to be the case for the keep's, of which 2/3 are "it exists" !votes. Only one Keep makes an argument for notability and w/o citing any evidence. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHPOS

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

Promotional tone has not been eliminated. Compared with the previous AfD, the software might still be notable enough for this page but from the looks of it would be very difficult to rewrite it to remove the promotional tone that has permeated this article all around. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the previous AfDs and all the keep arguments fail based on today's standards. The subject fails WP:GNG and I can find no RSes to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This spam has stayed here for a decade. Let's not make it a second one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My cursory reading up on this software leads me to think this article is notable. The article itself might be a bit advertising like and lacks sufficient references, but that can be fixed or the appropriate templates added. The software, on the other hand, does appear to be genuine and widely used. It's actually articles like this that make Wikipedia useful in the encyclopedic sense. I've nominated a lot of pages recently for deletion due to lack of notability, but I think this page should stay.13:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep This is a real software, should be re-written to not be promotional tone, but keep. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tend to agree that this is real software and therefore this article is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from the nominator: Lots of software is real - even one I just developed myself and posted on the Internet for anybody to download, just like DHPOS. Does that automatically qualify for an article according to WP:NWEB? If so, we could have several million of these pages by now. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's real software, but that's not the question that is being posed here. The question is, "do reliable and independent secondary sources write about this software, so we can write a comprehensive and neutral article on it?". As far as I can tell, the answer to that question is "no". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:30, 30 June 2017 (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.