Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnterpriseBuilder

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseBuilder

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

Unremarkable software/organization, borderline promotion. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were a business,it w ould be a clear A7. But since its worded as a article on a productfiuce, we have to deal with it a with it here. noindication of significance, let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a product of a non-notable Malaysian company. No independent sources exist for verification. No claim of significance. Fails WP:GNG by a mile. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (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) 18:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur with DGG with that this is basically A7 material, nothing at all minimally convincing and thus nothing else to suggest it can be kept with such questionability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 15 June 2016 (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.