Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CINTAX (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   Keep (non-admin closure)  Leonard(Bloom) 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CINTAX
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Kept in Feb, has never had any references, company is redlinked, article does not assert significance. Almost an A7 candidate. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Released by a red linked company, no sources to back it up. I declined my own A7 as it's technically not a company. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. 70k google hits indicate this is not a fringe software. As was pointed out in the last AfD, this is a notable piece of software, used by many foreign academics in US.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Piotrus and the previous AfD. It would be nice if an effort was made to enhance the article, rather than erase it. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure would, pity nobody has. How long does an unreferenced article with no assertion of notability get? "Keep and imp[rove" works once, but if the "and improve" doesn't get done... Guy (Help!) 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it takes, is the short awnser. Your suggesting that we should now begin deleting topics that (by consensus) are notable but just havent been expanded upon yet? BTW, That was a Keep Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Piotrus and Ecoleetage. (&gt;O_o)&gt;  Something  X  &lt;(^_^&lt;) 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jamie ☆ S93  17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a niche product: a web-based tax return preparation system for nonresident aliens connected to the field of higher education in the United States.  Nothing at all in the article suggests that it meets either the guidelines for products or for web content - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete In a response to the above comment, eventually it does become appropriate to delete articles which are unsourced but which could theoretically be sourced. If we hope to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS (excluding WP:N for this case), we should expect that sources be provided for claims AND topics.  Wikipedia will never be finalized but it is not a stretch to assume that it should be started at some point.  If no one is willing to step in and provide an independent, reliable source covering the subject, why should it stay on wikipedia?  I'm only leaning toward weak delete because there isn't a clear policy demanding this action (contrasted to WP:BLP).  Two AfDs and no sources should raise some red flags.  Protonk (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2008 (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.