Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimaveraReader (software) (2nd nomination)

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. Even if we accept that Darkodazines doesn't have a COI, he hasn't made a policy-based argument to keep. A Train^talk 16:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PrimaveraReader (software)

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

Non-notable software that was previously deleted via AfD. The reason I am not nominating this as G4 is that it does have additional reviews from this year: I don't think that solves the underlying problem, they are from blogs or other non-reliable sources so it still doesn't meet the coverage prong of WP:N. The article is also promotional in tone and has been created by a declared paid editor, so exclusion under WP:NOTSPAM also makes it fail the second prong of the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI NOTE (per WP:DISCLOSE): I have previously written documentation for the Oracle Primavera suite of software. They do not pay me to edit Wikipedia, nor to engage in AfD's about third-party software. If you think this should exclude me from this AfD, feel free to strike my !vote, and leave a note on my talk page.

This article fails WP:V and WP:NOR, and the provided sources are all blog posts and press releases - nothing that reliable enough to establish the notability of the subject. menaechmi (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:AVOIDCOI and WP:DISCLOSE, I'm not a paid editor, but rather a creator that knows people who do technology. Everyone is connected with someone on some way. It is an original research that aims to inform people, and answer most of the questions of audience's concerns. I believe I followed Wikipedia guidelines, and gave the public reliable, trustworthy, piece of content. The names behind the references, and even the Software Assessment Form are welcomed for any project management oriented software. In meantime, I've made a few changes to improve the tone. As a newbie, I'm expecting more support by experienced editors, and article deletion will discouraging for me to support Wikipedia with new and better articles. Thanks.Darko Atanasov 15:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkodazines (talk • contribs)
Delete - blogs and sponsored marketing sites are generally not acceptable sources. On a sidenote: an encyclopedic article is not supposed to provide comprehensive product descriptions including each and every minor detail, but a succinct overview of significant facts about a notable topic. Additional information like a detailed UI description belong on the product's homepage or in a manual, not on Wikipedia (see also WP:NOTGUIDE). GermanJoe (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. just a little to show significance as the previously deleted article. The attempted defense of the article above indicates additional reasons why it should be deleted. It is generaly not a good idea for a new editor to write an articles on a small firm or its product, but rather pick a topic whose notability is clear. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 24 July 2017 (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.