Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FiscalityONE ERP MRP WMS: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 20 July 2017

FiscalityONE ERP MRP WMS

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

Software with no claim in article of meeting the notability guidelines. Goodfaith google search turns up zero independent sources -- only the company's website, facebook, and other user-submitted content comes up. Prod tag was removed by the article creator without addressing any of the concerns, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, all content is promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CaySeven (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) The software is notable to its developers, investors, customers (past and present) and users (past and present) for over twenty years. The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system. Notability is line with those other many software packages listed in Wikipedia, for various reasons, and external references or citations listing injections of venture funding do not in themselves infer notability, yet seem to be accepted. After being present in the bespoke market for over two decades, the FiscalityONE entry on wikipedia will be able to cite external references as becomes more publicly known. Yet is still notable. The article is objective, non-promotional, impartial and in line with the wording of other unchallenged entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaySeven (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Comment And there's the problem. The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system - Wikipedia is not a free marketing channel. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability. Very clearly promotional. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks significance and fails to meet WP:NOTE criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTADVERTISING. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|list of Companies-related deletion discussions]]. <font face="Bradley Hand ITC">[[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|'''CAPTAIN RAJU''']]</font><sup>[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]</sup> 22:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)</small>
-'''Delete''' as per nom, all content is promotional. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' as per nom, all content is promotional. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' [[User:CaySeven|CaySeven]] ([[User talk:CaySeven|talk]]) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) The software is notable to its developers, investors, customers (past and present) and users (past and present) for over twenty years.  The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system.  Notability is line with those other many software packages listed in Wikipedia, for various reasons, and external references or citations listing injections of venture funding do not in themselves infer notability, yet seem to be accepted.  After being present in the bespoke market for over two decades, the FiscalityONE entry on wikipedia will be able to cite external references as becomes more publicly known. Yet is still notable.  The article is objective, non-promotional, impartial and in line with the wording of other unchallenged entries.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CaySeven|CaySeven]] ([[User talk:CaySeven#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CaySeven|contribs]]) </small>
+**'''Comment''' And there's the problem. {{purple|''The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system''}} - Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|not a free marketing channel]]. [[User:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgreen"><b>-- HighKing</b></font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgblue">++  </font>]]</sup> 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
-'''Keep''' [[User:CaySeven|CaySeven]] ([[User talk:CaySeven|talk]]) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) The software is notable to its developers, investors, customers (past and present) and users (past and present) for over twenty years.  The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system.  Notability is line with those other many software packages listed in Wikipedia, for various reasons, and external references or citations listing injections of venture funding do not in themselves infer notability, yet seem to be accepted.  After being present in the bespoke market for over two decades, the FiscalityONE entry on wikipedia will be able to cite external references as becomes more publicly known. Yet is still notable.  The article is objective, non-promotional, impartial and in line with the wording of other unchallenged entries.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CaySeven|CaySeven]] ([[User talk:CaySeven#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CaySeven|contribs]]) </small>
 *'''Delete''' - no evidence of any notability. Very clearly promotional. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;[[User:Velella|Velella]]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant [[WP:RS]] coverage. Article was created by an [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|SPA]] as possibly promotional. [[User:Dialectric|Dialectric]] ([[User talk:Dialectric|talk]]) 13:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
-'''Delete''' - subject lacks significance and fails to meet [[WP:NOTE]] criteria.--[[User:SamHolt6|SamHolt6]] ([[User talk:SamHolt6|talk]]) 14:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' - subject lacks significance and fails to meet [[WP:NOTE]] criteria.--[[User:SamHolt6|SamHolt6]] ([[User talk:SamHolt6|talk]]) 14:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''' per nom and [[WP:NOTADVERTISING]]. - [[User:GretLomborg|GretLomborg]] ([[User talk:GretLomborg|talk]]) 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Fails [[WP:SPIP]] and GNG, references fail [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] and [[WP:ORGIND]]. [[User:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgreen"><b>-- HighKing</b></font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgblue">++  </font>]]</sup> 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)