Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agile platform


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agile platform

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotion for non-notable software product by SPA. No reliable sources. Partly a copyright infringement of. Haakon (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Haakon (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious advertising: a complete software development and management solution targeted at building web business applications and web sites, in a field where every bit player thinks they rate an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect to Agile software development is perhaps worth considering. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 21:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Removed obvious advertising. --Tiago simoes (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: — Tiago simoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's good, but does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the product. Haakon (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove adjectives to make content objective. --Mozzello (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would this be non-notable? Does it require more external independent sources?--Tiago simoes (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, notability has to be demonstrated with appropriate sources. See the general notability guidelines at Notability. Haakon (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several reports on the Agile Platform by analysts, reviewers and blogers (Gartner, Ovum, TechRepublic, Forrester Research, etc...). Would these need to be in the article? --Tiago simoes (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found, , , , , , , , .--93.102.35.201 (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: — 93.102.35.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added more independent sources (Gartner, Nucleus Research and Butler Group) with detailed reviews of the Agile Platform, to comply with the General Notability Guideline (Mozzello), 15:08, 20 October 2009 (GMT)
 * I added more independent sources (Gartner, Nucleus Research and Butler Group) with detailed reviews of the Agile Platform, to comply with the General Notability Guideline (Mozzello), 15:08, 20 October 2009 (GMT)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: unsourced. Developer isn't notable, either. Alexius08 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Coverage and awards suggest notability.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has copyvio origins, is still a spammy mess of corporatespeak. Would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic, so despite probable passage of WP:N, I still !vote to delete, in the spirit of G11: even if the spam is not blatant, it is pervasive to such a degree that it completely undermines the possibility of writing a decent article. If kept, this article should be radically pared, and the exposition section written in a way that uses fewer buzzwords and actually gives a clue what the software is for. Ray  Talk 23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Agile Platform is listed in this article Comparison of business integration software, next to several other products and companies like iBOLT or openadaptor, and when comparing the content of the Agile Platform article with these I really don't understand why it is being tagged as "a spammy mess of corporatespeak". I would like to understand what content is effectively needed to turn this article into an accepted article for Wikipedia, since my objective when I created it was to describe this product from an independent and non-biased perspective and not as an online marketing piece. Mozzello 14:47, 28 October 2009 (GMT)
 * — Mozzello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 00:11, 24 October 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.