- 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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 19:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- VMproject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I previously placed a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this software is notable.". The Prod was removed by an IP (along with all the maintenance tags) with the comment "This software is notable. The company has more than 1200 cutsomers now and it also has an article in French on wikipédia. I have quoted two sources that deal with this software" Having customers is the common factor to all businesses and their products (otherwise bankruptcy looms); the issue here is notability, which is not demonstrated by simple assertion. As for the two offered links, one is the firm's own site, the other is a business tool directory listing. I've interwikied to the French article, which is no better (and has the same original author, whose account name resembles that of the company). So I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage found. It may exist and have customers but that doesn't make an article appropriate. Neither does having an unsourced article on a non-English Wikipedia with apparently lower standards than this one. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Software is non-notable as far as I can see (even when using google.fr), it merely seems to exist. Company doesn't fare well in the GNG department either. Creator seems to be an SPA with COI issues who has now been blocked. Purely promotional. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above, as promo advert/spam with insufficient refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2012 (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.