Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axure Software Solutions

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 - Yomangani^talk 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axure Software Solutions

Contested prob. Non-notable company. Artw 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Scott5114↗ 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hello32020 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm concerned about potential ostriching, as the company is relatively well-known among developers and project manager-types who have a use for RP Pro. I'd almost go as far as suggesting that it's as notable as Adobe Photoshop was to graphic designers in its earlier iterations before the advents of consumer digital photography and abundant bandwidth. Kevin 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:OSTRICH talks about reading the relevant notability criteria and performing searches to find supporting documentation for rationales. So where are the results of your search to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied? All that you have given us is a bare assertion that you, personally, think that this company is notable (and compared it to a software product) with no sources to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP (1) could arguably be satisfied by either of the following links: [1], [2]. A simple Google search on "axure" nets 58,000 hits. It certainly isn't Microsoft-scale, but in all fairness, the nom hasn't provided any sort of rationale beyond their assertion that they, personally, think that this company is not notable. Kevin 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Doing exactly the same as the nominator at the same time as criticising the nominator, is bad form. Now to the sources, which is what we should be looking for and looking at. Now we're getting somewhere. They actually discuss the product, not the company. There isn't anything in either that says anything about the company itself, apart from that it is the company that makes the tool. The first would certainly go some way towards satisfying WP:SOFTWARE for an article on Axure RP. What we need for an article on the company is something that actually discusses the company. Uncle G 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to believe there's a difference between devil's advocacy and "bad form", but in any case, I can see where you're coming from. In further searching, it doesn't seem that Axure is notable in and of itself, but I would contend that the RP Pro product is. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Adobe Photoshop makes pictures: something the average layman can understand and take an interest in. This has something to do with software development, and as such the description of their flagship product's intended uses is vague and sketchy: a full solution for the application design process and included features to manage marketing requirements, diagram sitemaps and logic, design interfaces, generate prototypes, and generate specifications. This will always be a rather obscure offering, and the article doesn't make a good case for notability othewise. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All things being equal, "Photoshop makes pictures" is akin to "Visio and Axure RP make flowcharts". I don't think what a layperson understands is necessarily sufficient criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but strip the article of the marketing mumbo-jumbo. Pronto. (I'm tagging.) --Dhartung | Talk 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as corporate WP:SPAM under new CSD policy and stricter attitude towards corporate articles. Article created by single purpose user account which has also spammed links to this article across other articles. No claim of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge in to Axure RP, per discussion between Uncle G and I. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is too vague and content-free to be worth hanging on to, even if notability could be shown. The article seems unlikely to improve beyond what we have now. Drawing flow diagrams doesn't sound like a difficult task; what more do they do? EdJohnston 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above stated reasons. Brimba 20:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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.