Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Enterprise Document Sharing (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 keep. Excellent rescue effort by Mark viking §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Enterprise Document Sharing

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

Article was deleted previously at AfD for lack of notability, userfied and later restored. In the interim, absolutely no indication that the subject ever achieved notability. Safiel (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:GNG, and WP:CSD#G4: Substantially the same stub as created, changed from "is" to "was" by the creator minutes later, with no substantial improvement in the 7 years since. No details added to article, and no evidence provided of standard ever being used. This also qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as a page that was reverted back into article space (by Dclunie (talk · contribs)) 14 days after being userfied by a deletion discussion, with no change whatsoever to the content or circumstances that lead to deletion and no reason given for return to article space. --Closeapple (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—937 google books hits. 694 google scholar hits. That in itself is not an argument for notability, but it tells me that it's likely a good argument can be made. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten the article from three secondary and one semi-primary (a collaborator with IHE) sources, all reliable. As LC notes, sources among books and journal articles are numerous and easy to come by; an inspection of these shows a number of them to be secondary and reliable. These WP:BEFORE sources and those in the rewritten article demonstrate notability of the topic and the rewrite has eliminated problems like promotional tone and the link farm. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Nice work by Mark viking in wading through the literature to salvage the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark's major improvements. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2014 (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.