Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgessSoft (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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 of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was restored by DRV after community consensus determined that it was prematurely deleted while revising was in progress. DRV recommended relisting for further consensus, so here we are. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NB:The applicable previous deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressoft, as this content resided at a different capitalization at the time. The previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgressSoft is not relevant to this discussion. For the DRV discussion, see here Xoloz 16:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep (Note that they could be viewed as a competitor of my employer, I'd comment instead of voting delete, but I don't think that bias should count against a keep vote.) While the initial references to their notability in the last AfD were at the company's web site, the cited sources in the article are press articles. (The company site versions are not press releases, they are images of the cited articles.) At least the second appears to me to include research the company would not likely have included in its press releases. The first does look like a repackaged press release. As I said last AfD round in a comment, it appears to pass WP:CORP point 1. GRBerry 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Later comment. I've tried more research. I'm not sure this can get beyond being a short stub other than by being built on the Arabic wikipedia and then translated to here. There just aren't many English language references to them, and most of those aren't good enough sources - either reprints of press releases or one line directory entries. It looks like most of their product releases are, or at least were 10 years ago, to make available in Arabic language versions of software widely available in English language versions. Changing my vote to a weak keep.GRBerry 13:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Its notability is posited on screen captures hosted on its own website (look at the two references URL's). Unbelievable self-promotion. —204.42.22.114 01:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as per my post above, its notability is posited and referenced to the originals that the company took screen captures of. GRBerry 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I don't see evidence of notability, even for criterion WP:CORP 1--coverage by the non-notable press doesn't create notability. Show me a Wall Street Journal article, I'll change my mind.-- FRCP11 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GRBerry. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with GRBerry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 26 May 2006 (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.