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 speedy keep. per SK1 (Nom withdrawn) - I never usually close this way but had Dialectric & Boleyn been awake I'm sure they'd of changed there !vote so going out on a limb & speedy keeping it. (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010Talk 23:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Ref provided is a how-to article, and only a single independent ref is insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no further singnificant RS coverage.
Dialectric (
talk) 23:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 04:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I couldn't find anything to establish its notability.
Boleyn (
talk) 08:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 17:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as surprisingly does pass GNG, Not sure how I never found naff all but there we go
. –
Davey2010Talk 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Copied in essence wholesale as references. I'd really like some references for the malware issue better than lots of the usual "software exists" sites like PC World (2 of 3 kept). –
Be..anyone (
talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Here are a few articles:
[1] from
PC World about CutePDF Writer;
[2] from PC World about CutePDF Professional;
[3] from PC World about CutePDF Form Filler;
[4] from
The Washington Post about CutePDF Writer;
[5] from
CNET about CutePDF Writer;
[6] from
Chip.de about CutePDF Writer.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Chip ignored, it triggered some "German" tracking category and won't offer new insights above the PC World reviews,
Washington Post FAQ added, thanks. –
Be..anyone (
talk) 23:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
comment - fwiw in the world of patenting, cutepdf is pretty well known b/c it always generates pdfs that the USPTO's e-filing website (which is very picky) will accept, per:
I'm not touching patent stuff unless I must, please add it to the article if you think it's good. –
Be..anyone (
talk) 23:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my nomination , one sentence with eight references is an acceptable stub. Non-admin close as withdrawn isn't possible at the moment, because two contributors supported the deletion. –
Be..anyone (
talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (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.
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 speedy keep. per SK1 (Nom withdrawn) - I never usually close this way but had Dialectric & Boleyn been awake I'm sure they'd of changed there !vote so going out on a limb & speedy keeping it. (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010Talk 23:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Ref provided is a how-to article, and only a single independent ref is insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no further singnificant RS coverage.
Dialectric (
talk) 23:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 04:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I couldn't find anything to establish its notability.
Boleyn (
talk) 08:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 17:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as surprisingly does pass GNG, Not sure how I never found naff all but there we go
. –
Davey2010Talk 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Copied in essence wholesale as references. I'd really like some references for the malware issue better than lots of the usual "software exists" sites like PC World (2 of 3 kept). –
Be..anyone (
talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Here are a few articles:
[1] from
PC World about CutePDF Writer;
[2] from PC World about CutePDF Professional;
[3] from PC World about CutePDF Form Filler;
[4] from
The Washington Post about CutePDF Writer;
[5] from
CNET about CutePDF Writer;
[6] from
Chip.de about CutePDF Writer.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Chip ignored, it triggered some "German" tracking category and won't offer new insights above the PC World reviews,
Washington Post FAQ added, thanks. –
Be..anyone (
talk) 23:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
comment - fwiw in the world of patenting, cutepdf is pretty well known b/c it always generates pdfs that the USPTO's e-filing website (which is very picky) will accept, per:
I'm not touching patent stuff unless I must, please add it to the article if you think it's good. –
Be..anyone (
talk) 23:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my nomination , one sentence with eight references is an acceptable stub. Non-admin close as withdrawn isn't possible at the moment, because two contributors supported the deletion. –
Be..anyone (
talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (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.