Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Projects .NET: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2009 November 18}}</noinclude> |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 16:
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Tim Song|Tim Song]] ([[User talk:Tim Song|talk]]) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
<hr style="width:50%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
This has been listed for more than two weeks, nobody has made any claim in its defense and it was relisted? Why? Get rid of this spam junk. What does it take to realize PR companies are on to the game of how to get on Wikipedia? Make an account, make a couple useless edits. Write the article you want. Fake the references. Never use that account again. Wikipedia can't compete against the promotional budget of a corporation by playing nice. Get rid of crap promotional articles about products. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]]) 06:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Line 22:
* '''Keep''': I see significant coverage in independent reliable sources in three external links. That's an easy keep to me. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
<hr style="width:50%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
<small>'''Note:''' This AfD was temporarily closed by [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] but Cirt then relisted following [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 18|this deletion review]]. Please note the claimed sources in that discussion.—[[User:S Marshall|<
*'''Delete'''. Sources are mostly [[WP:SPAM]], fail [[WP:RS]], consisting of blogs and press releases and other spammy things pushed out by the company, and the page seems mostly to be [[Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement]]. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Smerdis/Ihcoyc, whose remarks certainly stand up to close examination. This software was, indeed, one of the 98 finalists for a minor award in 2007, but it has not received anything I would call significant coverage in sources that I consider reliable.—[[User:S Marshall|<
**'''Comment''' severly toned down the promotional writing style of the article. The opinion I have earlier given to keep the article stands. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The software has been featured in industry publications such as PM Network published by the PMI, twice in 2 separate issues May 2009 and August 2009 respectively. These types of publications are not freely available on the web to the general public, as they are distributed to subscribers and members of the PMI. Googling "Easy Projects .NET PM Network" will produce proof of coverage. This product has also been featured in other print publications including Inc as well as project management related books and whitepapers by industry consultant David Coleman (42 Rules for Successful Collaboration). Because the software does target professionals in the project management field, the coverage by industry experts and publications is thus significant. In the list of Project Management Software articles, there are much more promotional articles than this one. Original article also highlighted the significance of this software in the development of an open source data access framework. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Xbammy|Xbammy]] ([[User talk:Xbammy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Xbammy|contribs]]) 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 32:
****Your odd edit contributions history leads one to the possibility that you are a [[WP:SPA]] here on Wikipedia in this case on behalf of promotion of a company. And no, the software in question has ''not'' received significant coverage in [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]] [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources]]. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
*****I concur that your account seems to be mainly used for discussions and edits around this software, which is suspect, Xbammy. Though you have disputed the reliablity of the sources mentioned, Crit, with which I don't agree, I don't see any reason to say the sources in External Links are not secondary or independent. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''weak keep''' the BNET review appears solid (if short), the nomination for the award looks minor but vaguely helpful, and the girl-blog-
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||