Deletion of MagicView

Comment: One of many articles about |nonnotable software.  Also is clearly written as an advertisement so there's nothing good we'd be getting rid of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as non-notable software add-on, unless reliable, independent sources can be found. I've had a go, but a determined http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22MagicView%22+Ecco&start=20&sa=N Google search doesn't bring back anything that near half-way fulfills the |criteria. Whilst comparisons |are not to be encouraged in deletion discussions (and despite the fact that using Google to prove a point is, well, |dodgy), I think that comparing that search to http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Word+Viewer%22+Microsoft&start=90&sa=N this one should give those likening this software to MS Word Viewer considerable pause for thought. If this software becomes as widely-used and notable then sources should not be an issue. Until then, however, I don't think it warrants an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:GOOGLE)

Comment: Disregard apparent |single-purpose accounts and unregistered users
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: Yes, there are references; no, they are not independent references. I couldn't find any, inside or outside the article. To the article's defender:  always applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Some information is obviously best sourced from spec sheets or other places related to the creators but to be considered |notable a topic has to be covered by someone else than the creators
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Clearly fails . YSWT - haranguing contributors to the Afd with repeats of the same comments is not helping your cause
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I'll not try to answer every single thing you mentioned in detail; had we but world enough, and time... but the very last thing is interesting. Eccomagic is notable? Well, they don't have an article on WP, and the 'authority' you cite for its being "Officially Trusted" is an online vendor! Reminder: the guy on the TV commercial with the white coat is not really a doctor. You still need to find sources that pass . I actually looked, and found none. (Hint: you should try Google News instead of Google
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as it seems quite clearly to me to be the work of pretty much one user, who seems intent to pretty much work on it by themselves.  I do not feel notability has been met.  It is clearly a |conflict of interest as well, and, in my opinion, lacks enough outside research and contributions.  In addition, it reads like an advertisement, despite the attempts to tone down POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)