Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezplot (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - T P 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ezplot

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

Add-on for Microsoft Excel with no evidence of notability. (Previous AfD was inconclusive since author of the article requested deletion. They have now decided to re-instate it.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to meet all guidelines. Could you please provide more specific instructions on what would make the article better, or what would help the notability of the article? The USPTO registered trademark for EZPLOT was just updated and the EZplot software has a large user base, particularly engineers. Thank you. Inquiry2 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry2 The main issue isn't the quality of the article. In order for a SUBJECT to have a stand-alone article it has to meet the requirements defined at wp:notability. The main question is whether or not it meets those criteria. If you wanted to make or bolster a case that it meets those criteria, the best way is to find and reference coverage which meets the criteria specified there. Very roughly speaking, this would be substantial things written about it in independent reliable sources. You should be doing this immediately if you think they exist and you want it kept. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Microsoft Excel (if there's anything worth merging) otherwise delete Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait 1-2 weeks See if author can come up with sources that satisfy wp:notability. Author should be doing this now anyway if they want it kept. Author says they are new which means that this question has not yet played out. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2011 (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.