Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PMID onto PDF using PDF XChange

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. I agree with the consensus: By our usual criterion for programs, this is not yet notable. It may be useful, and become notable, but WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PMID onto PDF using PDF XChange[edit]

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

I do not believe that this article is on a notable subject. Further, it completely lacks citations and is written in a semi-promotional format. However, I am not confident enough in this to nominate for speedy deletion, especially given that, though I have given more than the required minimum time for editing, it has not been long since the article's creation. Jackson Peebles (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTHOWTO. Stalwart111 13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be a speedy, per A7 - no evidence of importance. Not verifiable via secondary sources. Agree that it's obviously promotional and how-to per Stalwart111 (talk · contribs). -- Scray (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it's an A7 speedy deletion (the closest is "web content", but that's not really the same as downloadable software). It could be a G11 speedy for being promotional, but the language is not really promotional. WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:GNG both apply, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OriginalAuthor I checked the three pdf viewers which i have in use - Adobe, Foxit and what i found to realize the small vb program, PDFXView - whether they have the possibility to automatically printout the file names as known from all web browsers printing html files - they cannot do so, at least, I cannot see that I could tell them. This is the reason I created what I needed. The No. 16990 helper application to handle pdf files might not have the full bibliographical relevance to be included; might be, somewhere into the general PDF under the header neglected functions in current pdf handling programs (and some patches to solve them). I think if the top PDF viewers cannot do such a silly task, it is worth mentioning, somewhere ...

--Ossip Groth (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2013 (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.