Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ColorIURIS License Agreements

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. Big Dom 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ColorIURIS License Agreements

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article about a copyright management system which cites no independent sources. No good evidence for notability on the web either - this search yields only 250 or so results, mostly irrelevant. The author insists that references exist but has consistently failed to provide them. Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. andy (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, note that the article seems to be written in the first person in parts, i.e. its probably been written by the company or else copied from the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as the main article. This belongs in a brochure, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can barely understand what this article is about. In any case, no sources to verify the content in the article, so it fails WP:GNG. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 20:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand it up to the Special Colors section - at least I think I can. While the operability of a subject is not really a part of this debate, I feel that the complexity of the system would render it useless in practice. You would need to memorise the code or have a crib sheet to know what each site displaying the code actually meant. However, I feel this is somewhat academic, as the main part appears to be a copyvio of http://www.coloriuris.net/en:codigo_colores anyway. I'm slightly surprised no-one checked for this before. Peridon (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.