Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doc2doc

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doc2doc

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

Doc2doc is one of many online fora without significant mention in secondary sources. A shortlisting for a minor industry award in 2009 does not amount to notability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Minor trade awards are not indicia of notability, even if you won them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Wikipedia:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... per nom. Ducknish (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm Matthew who works on doc2doc. I am terribly sorry for the erroneous entry which has led to decision. Can I have an opportunity to provide you with more contextual links for the new entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbillingsleybmj (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 March 2013 (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.