The result was keep. Two acceptable sources have been found and the nominator changed their mind. No longer any calls for deletion in the debate. Mgm| (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable piece of software, produced by a non-notable company. A google news search gives three insubstantial references: one from a local paper, one from PC World associated with a download link and therefore arguably commercial, and one from a source on which we have no article. Gonzonoir ( talk) 08:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Response from Jonjbar ( talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)jonjbar reply
Gonzonoir, here are some reviews and facts about HelpNDoc which might be helpful:
Response from Jonjbar ( talk) 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
To me, this still looks thin, and I'm still leaning delete. I'd like to know what others think of the sources. But then, that's why we're at AfD :) Gonzonoir ( talk) 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Response by Jonjbar ( talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Softpedia's reviewer, Codrut Nistor clearly seems impartial as shown by the many reviews he has written for the web-site (545 according to google). Its reviews doesn't target only the best software: reply
This makes me think the reviewer is clearly independent and impartial and shows that the in-depth review he gave HelpNDoc can be trusted. Jonjbar ( talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Response from Jonjbar ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Other reference sources I can find include:
Keep. The two reviews by Softpedia [1] and Boston Broadside [2] seem to fairly sufficient to pass a WP:N check. I'm changing my position to keep. — Rankiri ( talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Two acceptable sources have been found and the nominator changed their mind. No longer any calls for deletion in the debate. Mgm| (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable piece of software, produced by a non-notable company. A google news search gives three insubstantial references: one from a local paper, one from PC World associated with a download link and therefore arguably commercial, and one from a source on which we have no article. Gonzonoir ( talk) 08:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Response from Jonjbar ( talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)jonjbar reply
Gonzonoir, here are some reviews and facts about HelpNDoc which might be helpful:
Response from Jonjbar ( talk) 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
To me, this still looks thin, and I'm still leaning delete. I'd like to know what others think of the sources. But then, that's why we're at AfD :) Gonzonoir ( talk) 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Response by Jonjbar ( talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Softpedia's reviewer, Codrut Nistor clearly seems impartial as shown by the many reviews he has written for the web-site (545 according to google). Its reviews doesn't target only the best software: reply
This makes me think the reviewer is clearly independent and impartial and shows that the in-depth review he gave HelpNDoc can be trusted. Jonjbar ( talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Response from Jonjbar ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Other reference sources I can find include:
Keep. The two reviews by Softpedia [1] and Boston Broadside [2] seem to fairly sufficient to pass a WP:N check. I'm changing my position to keep. — Rankiri ( talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply