Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xl Notes

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) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xl Notes

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

Non-notable app and sources don't establish notability. Nothing on Google or Google News about it. To paraphrase the author: "This is a new software so it didn't get coverage yet". Laurent (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this was written any more as a promo piece I would've suggested a speedy for spam. A plugin for Excel just doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the references it provides (a helpdesk post, a totally irrelevant instruction guide, and another totally irrelevant info page), coupled with the fact that Google turns up no further useful refs (rather unlike a notable piece of software) all seem to support this. SMC (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with deletion. I thought this add-in was notable because I use it extensively and thought it would be interesting to others. Should I resubmit it later, after notable sources appear or this subject is completely unnotable? Qery12 (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on whether it gets noteworthy coverage by third-party sources; what I meant by my above comment is that this seems unlikely to happen for a Microsoft Office plugin. Certainly as the article is now, those current references don't help establish notability, and nothing I can locate on the 'net appears to support its notability either. If it were to become notable for some reason (software awards, major news pieces, etc.) then I think it would be fine to recreate the article. SMC (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 8 October 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.