Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActCAD


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

ActCAD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROd removed by the creator. Not seeing how this passes WP:NSOFT/GNG. BEFORE does not show any reviews or in-depth coverage, only press releases and mentions in passing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. All or most of the sources seem to just be press releases. Plus, its clearly an advert article that appears to have been created and mainly edited by someone who is probably paid. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @: Can you please either substantiate or withdraw the WP:PAID allegation ... if there is a conflict of interest then the way to go is indicated at Conflict of interest ... it is not to make unsubstantiated allegation hints behind the back.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Having indirectly been sort of WP:CANVASed about the article on my talk page by I observe the standard of sourcing seems to show a complete lack of understanding of the minimal WP:RS needed for mainspace in a new article on the English Wikipedia; though it may be got away with on other language Wikipedias from what I hear.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, article is sourced to press releases and passing mentions, not anything which would help pass GNG. The article is also written terribly and is highly promotional. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. In related discussion on pl wiki, two reviews have been presented for consideration: and . Any thoughts on whether they are reliable? Ping User:Adamant1, User:Djm-leighpark, and User:Devonian Wombat. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hhhmmm, well, the first one looks like a basic overview of features with user reviews. I'm sure user reviews aren't good enough. Plus, it's hard to tell if the site could be considered a blog or not. If so, blogs don't usually count. Id say the same for the second site. Wikipedia says it's a "software and app discovery portal." Whatever that means in this context. But, they clearly profit from people downloading the software from their site. So they are not going to be neutral about it. Plus, it doesn't say who the author of the review is. Anonymous product reviews from run of the mill software download sites aren't usually acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much agree. Looking for a hands-on review either peer reviewed or a person doing an in-depth knowledgeable review capable of picking out the weak spot and doing similar reviews for several products (And findings consistent with other sources).  The first doesn't match that and neither does the second.  A blog by a widely noted subject matter expert might be a different matter soon.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I wouldn't think a review on Softonic would be neutral or reliable. The other cited by Piotrus looks too much like promotion. Not seeing any credible sources for this. SD0001 (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Couldn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources. (nn) - Flori4nK T A L K  19:11, 17 May 2020 (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.