Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FillAnyPDF

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. PDFFiller should be renominated separately if one wishes to delete it. NW (Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FillAnyPDF

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (And PDFFiller. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PDFFiller but Delete FillAnyPDF This article from Siteguide.us and this article from Lifehacker prove that PDFFiller passes WP:N. Delete FillAnyPDF per the lack of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the last point speaks for itself, FillAnyPDF also have articles showing that it passes WP:N too. As shown in the references section. I must admin that I didnt have time to fully complete the article, I just imagined it will be a good thing to add a new more software to the list of PDF soft, and as most of the others, a page for it. If the article should be more technical or something, I would really like to know. Elgatoduro (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — Elgatoduro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time, hopefully more discussion will bring a better consensus. JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Only sources in articles are blogs, unable to find any reliable source hits when googling. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2009 (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.