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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DataCleaner (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)

Self-promotion of a piece of software from student term paper without indication of notability and with no independent refs Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage from independent sources. No reviews of the software from well-known sources. Looks like a fine piece of software but that doesn't make it notable. Zad68 17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no significant coverage from independent reliable sources; thus no indication of notability. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2012 (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.