Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acquire software

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. --Coredesat 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acquire software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable software. No assertion of notability in article. No reliable sources found after internet search. Chunky Rice 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like quite a large and notable company. Their software is widespread and the article is very well-written and semi-comprehensive. This in no way meets the criteria for deletion. --Queer As Folk 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what about this software is notable? None of the things you mention, aside from being a bit vague (the company doesn't appear to be particluarly large), satisfy the criteria esablished for notability. -Chunky Rice 17:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete No external sources, questionable notability. Being well written is no reason to keep an article. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Normally I would call WP:SPAM as well but although the article was created by a newly registered user and is quite long and detailed despite the only source being the company web site it doesn't seem spammy to me. So, if someone can establish notability per WP:N I'll change to keep. Until then a delete from the Danish judge. MartinDK 17:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like the user who created the article, "neilsfarr" is an employee of the company that makes the software.[1] So, some COI issues, as well.-Chunky Rice 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. Definately a conflict of interest but the article isn't spammy just overly detailed with no references. Anyway, notability is the main issue and so far all we got is a candidate for A7 speedy. MartinDK 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. That's why I didn't tag it for speedy. And I'm not sure if A7 applies to a software product. It should, I think, but the critereon expressly states, "people, groups, companies and web content." -Chunky Rice 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference is to the company's website. No independent reviews, articles or discussions regarding the product appear in the article, and I couldn't find any myself. Cap'n Walker 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou for your comments. Although related to the company which created it (the product itself is owned by another company, but I am the one who knows most about it so am best placed to describe it), I am also on the board of POPAI Digital UK and am well known and respected in the Digital Signage industry. I have tried to keep it as a non-advertising but instead informative page and I am in the middle of adding other external links to this page and also bringing the digital signage page more up to date with what has been happening in the industry. If you can advise what to change rather than delete, I would appreciate it - especially as you say this is my first article. I noticed that there are other pages on Wiki which seem more or less similar yet contain less information (e.g. infochannel, or the list on Media player ), and people looking for Acquire software on Wiki would only find an old board game, but I did not want to serioulsy alter that page by adding info to it but rather link from it(see acquire) Neilsfarr 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Neilsfarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The primary issue with the article is that it doesn't assert notability. You can read about Wikiepdia's notability guideline here. The most common way to do this is to show that the subject of the article has received coverage from reliable sources (read about reliable sources here) independent of the subject. Other possilibities to show notability would be if the subject had won a notable award or had received some form of recognition from a notable body. -Chunky Rice 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources are found to establish notability. This is not an easy name to look for Corpx 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As a newbie, I would appreciate a bit of help: I have checked the 'reliable sources' item, but can I check what would be classed as a source? There are many signage operators who have and will report the quality, usefulness and the number of installations (news articles also reference some operators using the system) and 10,000 + installed units. (these would not be PR pieces) However, as Digital Signage is a narrow field, there are limited areas whereby notoriety (awards, information) that is not PR related that a signage operator or directly influencable company could provide, and because of the narrow field, normal 'general public' publications would not normally carry a story. Any ideas as to what would be 'approved' source? Secondly, I appreciate I only have a limited time to provide this/these links, so what happens if the article is deleted before I link the information? Do I just reapply it with the links attached? Thanks! Neilsfarr 12:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically what is required is a source with some sort of editorial oversight and fact checking. Signage operators probably would not qualify. But if there's some sort of trade journal or something like that, that would likely qualify. Should the article be deleted, you can ask that it be moved to your userspace where you can work on it until it is ready to be moved back to the main space. -Chunky Rice 13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sources do not have to be available online. As Chunky Rice points out the central issue is that the source is reliable and that the source contains non trivial coverage, in other words a single reference or other trivial mention is not enough. Also, reprints of press releases are generally not accepted. MartinDK 14:43, 10 August 2007 (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.