Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine plugin

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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divine plugin

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

Non notable photoshop plugin. Disputed prod. Only references are to the projects own website. noq (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam --I'm with Coco (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Also little context - I have no idea what this product is claimed to do (and I speak HTML!). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me. Thank you for your comments. Please, could you advise me what external references will be ok to place them in my article? The issue is that Divine plugin is a new product, but it's really useful for web developers and designers. So, what resources could write about it that I could use them in the article. I'd like to work out all the problems to have my article in Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdeveloper84 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for promoting new products. In order for the article to remain, you must establish notability with verifiable reliable sources. The fact that the product is new may make this harder. noq (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me. I don't want to promote a new product. I want to share it with the people concerned. Please could you tell what sources could be reliable sources for my article (for this kind of web product)? As there are many web sites where Divine plugin is discussed and its work is explained (not by its developers). Your reply will be very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdeveloper84 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By article creator's own description, this is a new product. It may someday become notable, but the mere fact it exists is not notability. Moreover, the article reads enough like a promo or tutorial to add extra question of the encyclopedic value of the article. LotLE×talk 23:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Google Books nor Google Scholar links. Note that this program is “free-beer” but not open-source software. Samboy (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2010 (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.