Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automation Workshop


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Automation Workshop

 * – ( View AfD View log )

My prod request was removed on the ground that there were three Independent sources listed on top of the primary sources that source most of this article. One is a tech blog post and another is a 5 star "review" from a product marketer. Both fail WP:INDY. The last one is an unrelated book. I consulted it, and it doesn't mention the subject at all. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as challenger of the soft delete. The article is about freeware app. It now has 2 book sources listed. Please consult to these books. The 1st - Oracle Business Intelligence Discoverer 11g Handbook, page 531. And the 2nd - Security+ Guide to Network Security Fundamentals, page 413, where it talks about Cryptographic hash functions that are supported by the app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De DAC (talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To warrant an article on Wikipedia, a product must meet WP:GNG. It needs " in that are ". The sources you provide above fail this because they discuss features of the software rather than the software itself, and thus cannot be used to demonstrate notability. (Is this the correct handbook? I can't find anything mentioning Febooti's "Automation Workshop" on page 531, or in the whole document for that matter.) Mottezen (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not that book. Your link is to some random website. I have a physical book []. And may I ask, why do you want to delete the page about useful free app that I am using every day? There are a lot of commercial apps in Wikipedia without any notability and references. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Image_Backup (zero references, not notable). There are thousands of the similar pages. Should I start deleting process for them? I really want to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De DAC (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found the book. This is page 531. As this topic is covered in only one sentence in the whole book, this source fails the "significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG.
 * As for your question, wikipedia wants to avoid being a WP:SOAPBOX for groups, companies, products and people to advertise. The article you linked is a particularly egregious case of spam, so I proposed its speedy deletion. But being free, open source, or not-for-profit doesn't make a topic unable to be advertised. To avoid spam, Wikipedia established notability guidelines. We require a topic to be covered by Reliable sources to warrant inclusion. That way, we can write a decent article about a topic without relying on primary sources, which are systemically promotional and could jeopardize our Neutral point of view policy. As for the thousand of articles who don't meet that standard, there are volunteers who sometimes go through them to try to improve them, or to propose their deletion if that is impossible. Mottezen (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. versacespace  talk to me  03:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No good secondary sources to be found; given its limited audience and specialization I doubt any exist. — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:15, 24 March 2021 (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.