Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SetupBuilder

:{{la|SetupBuilder}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|SetupBuilder}})

Article does not mention any reliable sources hence notability cannot be established. Also note that competitive product's page (InstallAware) has been deleted so for consistency this one should also be removed. Grobelny (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think the outcome of a competitor really has much impact here, but regardless, I am unable to find reliable sources or any evidence of notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete unless the author or someone can show notability. Peridon (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from article talk page:

If this article is deleted, then articles on InstallShield, Wise Installer, Innosetup, InstallAnywhere etc. must also be deleted for consistency. All the articles are similar in presentation and content.

Daan.Marais (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

While this article does seem to need more information, Daan.Marais is quite correct. One cannot delete this product without also deleting its competitors.

Shparker (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::Actually, he's wrong. All articles on Wikipedia are independent of each other and the fact that one exists doesn't mean that another should. We might not have caught up with the other one, or it might really be different - by our rules. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I think what he means to say is that, if we delete this page, then the other pages can/should be deleted by the same arguments. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

End of copy

::::I very much agree with this logic: if InstallAware article was deleted and SetupBuilder article is deleted then further proposals for deletion should follow and be decided on case by case basis. Note that this argument may be used both ways: "InstallAware was deleted so we should delete SetupBuilder" or "InstallShield exists so we should keep SetupBuilder". Therefore as pointed out by others it is not an argument on its own. Grobelny (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. This article doesn't cite any independent sources that would verify this product's notability, and I wasn't able to find any appropriate sources to add with my own search. The existence or nonexistence of other articles is not relevant to this discussion; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a relevant link. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Recently the article got a few new links so please speak up if you have changed your mind on notability of SetupBuilder. 151.193.120.15 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. Holding a US Patent would seem to cover the notability and independence aspect --StamosD (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — StamosD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::Anyone can file a patent for a few thousand dollars. A patent does not indicate the subject is notable. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (Same goes for anything else filed with the USPTO. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

::It seems to me that it is a trademark, not a patent. Grobelny (talk) 20:15, 20 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.