Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MixERP
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MixERP
- MixERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable software. References given are either primary or a blog. Google searches provide nothing substantial on this application. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 12:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 18:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am the author of this article and I believe this article need not be deleted from Wikipedia. Firstly, the tone of the article is neutral and all the information is verifiable as all the necessary references have been listed now. Yes it is true that there is no substantial third party reference to the subject of the article and that is so because the application is still not officially released and is currently under development process. Moreover, if one can visit CodePlex and do some research, you will notice that MixERP is the most active project among all the "ERP" projects being hosted over at codeplex. [1] Nothing is misleading and the article was created only for informative purposes. Nabinked (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:NSOFT? Or WP:GNG? The lack of independent coverage is the issue. noq (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated earlier, there is definitely serious lack of third party coverage of the product but it isn't completely non-existent either. For instance, the official twitter account of "Planet PostgreSQL", which apparently has over 4500 followers,recently tweeted one of the article explaining how MixERP has been powered by PostgreSQL server [2]. Now, for an application which is not even officially released yet, that is definitely a notable feat and shows the importance of the project. Moreover, WP:GNG also clearly states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame or popularity " . So, just because the product has not been popularly mentioned all over the internet, doesn't imply that it isn't important enough to be included in Wikipedia. I expect careful consideration of all aspects before making any hasty decisions. Nabinked (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you've misinterpreted that line from the GNG. What that's supposed to mean is that just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's notable, and vice versa. For example, a lot of memes aren't covered by reliable sources and are therefore not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, but they are popular nonetheless. On the other hand, stuff like my main area of expertise, articles on roads, may not be the most popular thing that everyone around the world and on the internet is talking about, but they still have multiple reliable sources covering them, and thus are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. TCN7JM 20:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated earlier, there is definitely serious lack of third party coverage of the product but it isn't completely non-existent either. For instance, the official twitter account of "Planet PostgreSQL", which apparently has over 4500 followers,recently tweeted one of the article explaining how MixERP has been powered by PostgreSQL server [2]. Now, for an application which is not even officially released yet, that is definitely a notable feat and shows the importance of the project. Moreover, WP:GNG also clearly states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame or popularity " . So, just because the product has not been popularly mentioned all over the internet, doesn't imply that it isn't important enough to be included in Wikipedia. I expect careful consideration of all aspects before making any hasty decisions. Nabinked (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In addition to my above comment, this software doesn't seem to have any reliable sources covering it. I don't think it passes any of the notability guidelines. TCN7JM 09:50, 20 August 2013 (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!* 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reliable sources for this article are scarce. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2013 (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.