Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open-source enterprise architecture tools

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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open-source enterprise architecture tools

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

This article exists primarily to advertise several EA tool vendors (albeit claiming to have an 'open source' or free version of their tool). This is clearly acknowledged at the start by saying "Some open source EA Tools are also free of charge". That is, some are not. One example states that it is a "low cost to entry solution" (i.e. not free) and another even freely acknowledges that the tool is "also available as an Enterprise Edition". There are advertising statements like "Customer references are mainly in ..." and "fulfils the needs of most Enterprise Architects and associated stakeholders".

The whole premise for this page is the baseless claim (without any citation) that "Traditionally, enterprise architecture tools are proprietary and have a reputation for being expensive to purchase, customise and run". Some commercial EA tools are free, many are in the low 3-figures per seat, and many are easier to customise than any of these 'open source' examples. Indeed, the providers of these 'open source' tools generate revenue by customising these purportedly free solutions.

And besides, most of the tools listed are not true open source in that the source code is not actually available. Kjas1970 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 7. Snotbot t • c » 08:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether not being truly open source makes a difference in deletion policy, but deception goes hand in hand with advertising. I do think that this page exists mostly to drive traffic to the websites of a number of non-notable, back office, IT department related software publishers, and to serve as an aggregator of software packages that could never support standalone articles. The few references are to IT analysts and news sites that seek to provide deep coverage of specific industries, and as such are unhelpful to establish notability. The article also contains extensive patches of vague gibberish; Open-source enterprise architecture tools#Requirements of an enterprise architecture tool specifically seems to be too uninformative to improve by editing; there are other patches of the same kind of prose. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like there might be some evidence to suggest that Enterprise architecture tools might be a notable topic, this "Open-source" variety of that would probably be an unlikely-to-be searched for term that would probably best be a small section of that hypothetical article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would think maybe just a Tools section on the Enterprise architecture page that lists commercial and purportedly 'open source' tools? Kjas1970 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2013 (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.