Deletion of AceProject (3rd nomination)

Comment: not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show that it passes 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: the coverage  shown above is  does not demonstrate notability. The tech crunch article is hurnalism and really does not demonstrate why this is notable. It only discusses features of the product - it is very mundane and routine coverage. The New York Times article is insignificant coverage that mentions this product along with other similar products. It discusses general needs in common with types of people yearning to be organized then it discusses several products. Even PC mag says it has deficiencies. The "print" or "web" coverage does not go beyond helpful tips. Wikipedia is not an advice column. This article is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion wp:promo. I agree with delete and salt
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: the sources found are just |routine mentions in publications that would talk about ''any'' software, good bad or indifferent, and the ''New York Times'' source listed above looks awfully like a press release or some other advert. There isn't anything in the above coverage listed that can't be simply expressed as "it's a bit of software". Which significant customers does it have? What's its userbase and national or international presence? How has it contributed to the sum of human knowledge? We don't know because the sources don't tell us
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: with due respect to the coverage provided above, which is all of a  nature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)