Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream report

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 delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dream report

Dream report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a computer program that fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has it made a significant impact in its field. Coverage on the product is scant and promotional. Its only real claim-to-fame is a minor, nonnotable award [1]. Furthermore, it reads like an advertisement and its creator has a history of creating promotional content. ThemFromSpace 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pure advertisement. Nominate for speedy deletion. -Sigeng (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:B2B. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I have made significant edits that are intended to remove the appearance of advertisement while still highlighting the specialized nature of industrial reporting and this unique product for that market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.102.104 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Still speedy delete. Unless you have third party reliable sources to demonstrate corporate notability. -Sigeng (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article lacking significant independent coverage to establish notability. a search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2014 (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.