Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locbook

: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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Locbook]]=

:{{la|Locbook}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Locbook}})

Apparently non-notable software. One EL is the freshmeat page and the other EL simply quotes two sentences from the freshmeat page. Google returns a handful of single-paragraph results but they all appear to copy & paste either developer blurb or this article. There does not appear to be the in-depth discussion by independent sources which is needed to establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing a Google search on "linux petroleum accounting software" returns this first on the list and while a few other petroleum accounting packages are listed as well, if you go to their sites none of them have a Linux version and none are freeware. So being that this is the only Linux and only freeware petroleum accounting software would seem to be somewhat notable. The developer indicated that this software package was initially released in September 2010 so that may be why independent articles can't be found in the Internet yet.Skykt (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Only being released for four months does certainly explain the lack of sources, especially for such a niche market as this. But perhaps that is proof that it is WP:TOOSOON for Locbook to have a Wikipedia article. -- RoninBK T C 06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:17, 12 January 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.