Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoodWing Software

: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. The consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[WoodWing Software]]=

:{{la|WoodWing Software}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|WoodWing Software}})

Non-notable software firm; "sources" mostly press releases, self-publications and blogs Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, unambiguous advertising: integrated editorial solutions, based on the blended media concept. This is the kind of prose that can't be made neutral by editing, because it doesn't mean anything to begin with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • : You can simply remove language you don't think you can make neutral... –SJ+
  • Weak Keep. The Deloitte and Seybold mentions demonstrate notability in the local business sphere and presence on the global market; staff and customer list qualify for notability in the field of desktop workflow management. More external refs would be nice. –SJ+ 11:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • : Comment: marketing jargon and language removed. –SJ+ 07:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:SPAM, the whole thing is riddled with stuff right out of Marketing 101. ukexpat (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • : That's a bold interpretation of SPAM; this was added by a well-known user, clearly not spam by their marketing department; and dislike of the language of the article isn't normally grounds for deletion. –SJ+ 07:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ::I read pages and pages of advertising copy as part of my day job. I didn't say it was written but their marketing department, but it could have been. – ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2011 (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.