Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkACE

:{{la|WorkACE}} ([{{fullurl:WorkACE|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkACE}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Does not meet Notability Criteria

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the software was just released. The article itself is one big advertisement with the opening paragraph paraphrased from the [http://www.workace.com/ company website]. The only coverage I could find was this [http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050312/asp/business/story_4481472.asp brief announcement]. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Based on my analysis of the sources below, I still feel that there is no standalone notability for WorkACE. However, an argument could be made for sufficient notability for the company QXSystems that an article could be created for it, and it would be appropriate to merge some of this material to the company's article, or in the alternative, delete if there is no merge target. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I would like to defend the deletion for the following reasons:

a. You wrote, "the software was just released". Its not released now, WorkACE was released in 2005. Thats almost 4 years now.

b. You wrote, "The article itself is one big advertisement with the opening paragraph paraphrased from the company website". Yes, I agree its from the website, but this is way to describe WorkACE in a small para. If you feel it doesn't follow Wikipedia standards, can you please help me in defining the same.

c. You wrote, "The only coverage I could find was this brief announcement". Its not correct, please refer to the following links:

1. http://www.technotv.net/SoftwarePR/QXSystems-Announces.htm
2. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_May_20/ai_n13759277
3. http://archives.chennaionline.com/science/Technology/2005/03qxs.asp
4. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/03/11/stories/2005031102170500.htm
5. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050312/asp/business/story_4481472.asp
6. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/05/prweb242816.htm

There are many if you would search for them.

d. You wrote, "That's not enough to establish notability". If the above links are not enough, can you please refer to:

1. http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/topstories/2008/408010301.asp
2. http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/topstories/2007/107120408.asp
3. http://www.smbit.in/ (on this jump to page 43 of September, 2008 issue)
4. http://www.scandasia.com/viewNews.php?news_id=3072

other links can be searched for or can be shared upon request.

Please note that QXSystems the company behind WorkACE has been there for almost 11 years now and WorkACE.com is only the SaaS outlet, which was launched in 2007 itself(which is almost 2 yrs now).

Rgds,

Sushant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.19.141 (talk)

• Analysis of sources

::Source 1 sounds like a regurgitated press release. And it likely is since the [http://www.technotv.net/about.html site publishes user submitted content]. Not a reliable source for notability.

::Source 2 is taken from Business Wire which is a press release service. Not a reliable source for notability.

::Source 3 reads like a regurgitated press release. I invite other editors to review and make their own judgement. For me, it doesn't establish notability.

::Source 4 is an article about the the company QXSystems, and only just mentions WorkACE. I would say this article contributes to establishing notability for the company, but not the product.

::Source 5 is the same as the article I dug up. It's a very brief announcement about the company, and only mentions. WorkACE. As with source 4, I would say this article contributes to establishing notability for the company, but not the product.

::Source 6 is a from PRWeb, a press release service. Not a reliable source for notability.

::From the additional sources provided:

::Source 1 is an actual article about the software. This does help establish notability.

::Source 2 is an article that is about software as a service. It mentions WorkACE, but that is all. A mention does not help establish notability.

::Source 3 has the product in a list provided material in the cover story. This one is marginal. For me, it is still only a mention, but I invite other editors to review for themselves.

::Source 4 is an interview with Johan M Karlstedt, founder of the company. Workace has a paragrah in the article. The website indicates Press Releases, Contributions, Article ideas, etc. welcome. , os it is unclear how much editorial oversight is put into the work. In any case, this is still for me just a mention of the software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - based on [http://www.itmweb.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000188.html this], it would appear that the ip-editor signing as Sushant is affiliated with the company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would have deleted it as blatant spam. Phrases like "all compiled into a comprehensive, structured and cognitive online computing environment." are a dead giveaway. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Software is too new to be notable, and all the "sources" found above are press releases that don't discuss the software in the detail required by WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2009 (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.