Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comindware Project

: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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

=[[Comindware Project]]=

:{{la|Comindware Project}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comindware_Project Stats])

:({{Find sources|Comindware Project}})

Was nominated for speedy as an advertisement. I declined to speedy it as it's not blatant - but it does an AfD in my opinion. I don't see an obvious case for its retention under notability. Tóraí (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for review of my article!

According to general notability guideline an article is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”.

I totally agree that it is disputable if every of the resources I referred to in this article is reliable and independent, meanwhile I’d like to claim that at least 2 of them are reliable and independent:

  • TopTen Reviews. I believe they provide unbiased reviews. Please, see their third-party product reviews methodology http://www.toptenreviews.com/methodology.html

  • About.com. I believe the article I refer to not marked as sponsored. When according to About.com Advertising Policy (http://www.about.com/gi/pages/ethics.htm ) “All "native" ads or paid content are identified as an "Ad," "Advertisement," "Sponsored" or a similar designation indicating that the content is being provided by or on behalf of the sponsor.” So, assume content I refer to as not sponsored and worth of reference to.
81.25.36.89 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Comindware Project is project management software that has yet to receive that level of independent, in-depth coverage requited by WP:GNG. The single in depth piece at TopTenReviews is insufficient. Basically WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete As above by Bejnar, only one external reference (the Top ten review) seems to have any claim at objectivity and even this is fluffy - it doesn't list any negative points and it doesn't give any indication that the reviewer actually used the software, rather than just regurgitated a list of provided features.Chandler321 (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

: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.