Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edius

:{{la|Edius}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Edius}})

Spam Vandalism Crowbar1981 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I wouldn't call it vandalism, but there are no claims or indications of notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – written like an advertisement, and fails WP:GNG. Keep per Msnicki - the issues I have stated in my "delete" vote have been addressed --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Thanks everyone for the help I'm not familiar with Wiki language but I understand it is has no notability. I'm removing external links as suggested in one label in the article

Crowbar1981 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

• Speedy keep. This is easily the silliest nomination for deletion that I've seen in a while. It took literally 10 minutes to find 3 sources, which I've added; I'm satisfied I could find as many more as anyone wants. If you click the books link, it's obvious this software is well-known and that many writers have published mentions of the product. This product easily clears the bar for notability as required by WP:GNG. Further, nom is simply wrong in labeling this article as "spam vandalism"; I don't believe he knows what the term vandalism means on WP. Msnicki (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Msnicki. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (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.