Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D Topicscape

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. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Topicscape

Advertorial-looking article whose primary sources are blogs. There is an allusion to one external review, which falls short of the "multiple non-trivial" clause of WP:SOFTWARE. Might be fixable, might not; as it is the article includes things like advice on how to get lots of ghits for a term. Ugh. Just zis Guy you know? 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Clean-up - The article may be salvageable. It definitely requires WP:NPOV attention, clean-up and expansion though. It just has an advertising feel in its present form. It may not meet the review clause for WP:SOFTWARE, but it's got enough unique ghits that it's "in the spotlight" for those looking at project management software. Niche software doesn't always make for interesting review material unless you're writing for a specific audience. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above: From WP:SOFTWARE "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece..." Author felt that Wall Street Journal met that criterion. "A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient." Ghits were to establish significance of the general area of mind mapping. Will rework. 3D being a new approach to mind and concept mapping, this seems to represent innovative software. 3D is not to provide eye candy but to solve a problem of scalability with 2D mind maps. Will rework to bring in line with 'guide to writing better articles'.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG. Article is useless in its present form, too spammy, and uses too many of last week's buzzwords. If someone has something encyclopedic to say about this program, they can write a new article. Phr (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promo. Yet another software product. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Advertisement trying real hard to be an encyclopedia article. I guess I have to take on good faith regarding the Wall Street Journal article that I can't access. Has anyone beyond the writer seen this? Tychocat 08:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:OR ("I'd agree"). No objection to it being recreated (or reworked to try and save it). Yomangani 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the product is from a single product company, so applying WP:CORP would make sense, and it fails that test. In any case, the article itself does nto appear to have salvageable content. -- Whpq 13:29, 26 July 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.