Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MemoQ

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MemoQ[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Also entirely unreferenced advertising: a translation environment tool created by Kilgray translation technologies which contains a number of features to enhance the translation process for both translators and project managers.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability Dialectric (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the topic is notable, [1] the article is useless mud. Can't even tell what this is about. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article seems to have been created for sole promotional purposes. I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could help this article on an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - there are some books listed here, but it's hard to tell how much of this is spam from the creators of the software that got copied uncritically into the books. Maybe it's just one of those things where people spammed everywhere. Linguogeek (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of the first ten hits in that search, three appear to be self-published and six appear to be false-positives (either character-recognition errors or unrelated words/names). That leaves one of ten possibly relevant and reliable, apparently (going by Google Books' snippet view) a passing mention in MultiLingual, which looks like a computational linguistics publication. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 10 August 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.