Deletion of Ancestris (2nd nomination)

Comment: Per Nom. Does not show to be notable. |COI involvement (a collaboration) to get the subject covered fails to present a |neutral point of view thus presenting a promotional tone. erifiablity|Verifiablity is a policy and explains  Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|"Inline citations" and why they must be used.  General sources can be just misplaced "External links" when they are not used specifically to verify content and a source can be used for content while not necessarily advancing notability. Considering the potential COI this should have been presented at , instead of being recreated, so it was probably a candidate for a speedy deletion.   While new editors are always appreciated there are considerations when |SPA's are involved concerning Wikipedia:advocacy|advocacy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:AFC||WP:SPA)

Comment: same arguments apply as at the 1st AFD.  I would have just gone for G4 speedy.  No  in  to establish . Google searches not finding many hits. Editor has a possible  and all their edits are to do with this software
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:significant coverage||WP:reliable sources||WP:notability)

Comment: Fails . There are many non-notable software articles on Wikipedia, due to people trying to increase the SEO of their software because of the importance search engines place on Wikipedia articles. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)