Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Download Accelerator Plus (2nd 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Download Accelerator Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software that makes zero claims towards notability. Was previously nominated and kept with only 2 contributors with no real policy argument as to why it should be kept other than finding some reviews. The references are 80% primary sources and a not great review. I don't find anything that makes any note of this actually being notable software other than having appears in a couple of download accelerator lists (possibly because there weren't that many of them and they usually didn't work as advertised and are a dead software end.) Canterbury Tail talk 18:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- delete, not notable, no coverage, just passing mentions. Artem.G (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The software seems to still be available, at least there is a web site for downloading it. I found the page on their site that purported to link to reviews, but I struck out on all of them. At most I found re-listings of the company info about the software. I'm not finding anything of substance; the best has been a CNET review from 2002. Lamona (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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.