Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertabase Pro (2nd nomination)

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vertabase Pro

Vertabase Pro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Second nomination. Still appears not to be notable enough to merit article. Also has quite a lack of sources. -WarthogDemon 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete It is written like an advert, and seems to exist to route you to their websites, but there are 3rd party links (weak ones). Almost on the fence, but would lean to delete for the double linking to themselves. Pharmboy 00:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Dispute deletion. Comments on talk page. Will add more sources. Not an advert. Same type of content as other project management software like ProjectInsight by Metafuse, AtTask and Ace Project-Standpipe

still seems obviously and advert to me. If the two main sources for info are wikipedia and their homepage, it seems like spam to me. Pharmboy 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

the references show main sources of information as numberous notable computer magazines e.g ComputerWorld Magazine, ColdFusion Developer's Journal, Insurance and Technology Magazine. homepage is simply an external reference. Standpipe July 26 2007

• Delete. If possible, speedy as a recreation. These sources do not meet our standards, although it is nice that user trimmed most of the fluff from the previously-deleted version. Cool Hand Luke 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Dispute deletion. The sources are all valid secondary sources. In many cases there are more sources here (and of more third party nature) than similar content as other project management software entries such as ProjectInsight by Metafuse, AtTask and Ace Project. -Standpipe

15:38 30 July 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.