Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actium erp


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actium erp

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable software; borderline spam Rcawsey (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable software by non-notable developer. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should have been CSD-G11. --Karnesky (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The author has written on Talk:Actium erp: Thank you for your comment! Can you provide us with more information about your criteria you made use of in tagging our article about Actium ERP as "Unnotable software; borderline spam" !?! There must be something we don't do right! We are not intended to "spam" the readership as much as demonstrate the inter-relation and co-existence of Open Source and Proprietary software. When we compare ourselves with Compiere, SAP Business One and other companies using either type of licensing in the development of their product, we fit right in! So please, can you provide us with more information about the process you make use of in the determination of our presence here representing a "spamming" threat to your readership! We will be glad to oblige! Perhaps is it the format of the article that is a problem; perhaps it is the category it belongs to! One thing is for sure, we have no intent of spamming your readership. Without prejudice! --PMaloney (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Copied to this page by Cunard (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PMaloney, the article will be deleted because it lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2009 (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.