Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuoteWerks

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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Per nom, the issue is of notability. Two independent views state a firm delete on the basis of non-notability, and two propose a (weak?) keep on the basis of some degree of notability (the fifth view is from the article creator, whose sole contribution judging by contribution log has solely been to write articles on QuoteWerks and its company Aspire, in the two months of editing history to date. This tends to uphold the suggestions of promotion and COI per nom.) The question then is, whether any contributor to the AFD has provided reasonable evidence of notability. A couple of awards from a trade group [1] are not likely to be notable as the sole basis for this criteria, nor is being a Microsoft partner, having a wide sales net, or being congratulated for being a good integration to some other package especially notable. If there is (as Dogbert01 states) truly a significant size userbase or it truly is notable in any significant way, there would have been serious independent and credible sources able to be cited to support this, and upon citing, others would have accepted them. But none (beyond google which is often as much about marketing as actual importance) were presented to support this view in the AFD by any contributors. Although the 'vote' on the surface was fairly equal, AFD is not a vote, but a process to solicit policy-related points. Looking at the policy-related points related to promotional articles and notability, and the evidence for these put forward in the discussion, the nom seems to be well founded; no significant evidence suggesting otherwise was put forward. If the software in future becomes notable outside its own small circle and its mutually-supporting trade affiliates and relationships, then that would be different. But if that happens there will need to be clear evidence that others can see and agree, to support it.

[edit] QuoteWerks

QuoteWerks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A thinly-disguised advert, created by user whose only substantial contributions are to this article and the article of the company that wrote it; violates WP:COI. Claims "lots of requests for article" and an IP-address thanks for its creation. Claims awards, but links given are press releases or trade magazines; none appear notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional device. Akihabara 08:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. You may also want to zap the company. MER-C 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete - I am only contributing to subject areas that I have experience with and feel competent in writing. I work in the SFA and CRM industries, thus I will contribute in these areas. I do not see how the QuoteWerks listing is much different than say the GoldMine article (in fact it has more relevant information). The Microsoft Dynamics CRM article has even less information. TeleMagic is an antiquated CRM application that is no longer being developed. As far as the IPs, there are a number on other pages that have also requested the article. There a lot of anonymous contributions on Wikipedia. Are you going to delete all pages that fit that criteria? Would adding competion help in keeping the article? Dogbert01 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not compare with other articles; perhaps they should be gone too. What evidence from reliable sources is there of notability? Akihabara 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perform a search for QuoteWerks in Google [2]. You will find that over 41,000 results. Their website lists Hundreds of resellers worldwide [3]. A userbase of over 40,000 is rather substantial for a business software package [4]. The product can be found on all of the partner websites that were listed in the article. Dogbert01 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It seems to be a significant enough piece of software, but I would recommend that the article is rewritten to look less like company promotional material, extolling its features. GB 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep because the awards show notability and verifiability. Dogbert1 should examie some good articles about software companies and learn to write in the appropriate WP manner.DGG 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions of good software articles, please let me know. I am open to any suggestions to improve my skills. Please feel free to modify this article as well as an eaxample. Dogbert01 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - crz crztalk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) - crz crztalk 20:16, 14 January 2007 (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.