Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRE Loaded (3rd 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   delete and protect from recreation.  Sandstein  19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Recreated by a single purpose account after having been deleted twice before. The concerns which lead to the previous deletions also apply to the new version, in fact I am able to quote myself from the previous deletion discussion:
 * ...the text is written like advertising, eschewing hard facts (like the number of users/buyers/downloads of the software, who owns the company, numbers on revenue, profits, employees) in favour of fuzzy marketing language. The product might be notable or not, but until somebody writes a neutral article based on reliable independent sources giving clear indications of notability, the article should better be deleted. The product is already mentioned at osCommerce. Regards, High on a tree 08:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The advertising character of the text is clearly visible in how it addresses the reader - as a potential customer, not as the reader of an encyclopedia:
 * Add-On Systems introduce entire new frameworks into your site and can themselves support additional Add-On Modules. Add-On Modules enhance the capabilities of your CRE Loaded store with these Add-On Modules. 

With regard to the general notability guideline, the article contains zero third-party references, but no less than 12 links to web sites by or associated with the company.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If, as you suggest, this version is substantially the same as that which existed previously, then speedy delete per CSD G4. Might also want to consider salting as this is the third time the article has been created. In any case delete per the apparent lack of reliable third-party sources. Gr1st (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Looks awfully a lot like an advertisement. Themfromspace (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is pathetic. Please delete. Salt it hard. Google has ranked the article already as if it had product information. I am a fairly established wikipedian, and I would offer to start a stub article for it in my non-existent spare time, and to take it under my wing, but there would be the obvious problem of the people who keep creating this advertisement would probably find a way to sneak the junk back in. And I hate that sort of thing. I think it should be deleted for a long time until CRE is more notable and realizes that this type of article is not worth a dime. By the way, what is the process for a salted article? How long would it be? I would hope that it could be salted 3 to 6 months or something substantial, except of course I would think that eventually their notability would demand something. No need to be Cutting off the nose to spite the face -- meaning that someone might find a CRE Loaded article useful if a good one could be written! I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've had a go at cleaning up the article and finding the sources. It now reads less like an advert but my research leaves me unconvinced that this software is actually notable. if someone can find reliable sources, let me know on my talkpage. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * May I have a chance to try and clean up this article and offer some better sources? I had no idea it had been up for deletion twice before. I thought information about the company behind the product was wanted? If so why was it removed and if not, what is? --Smheard 12:43, 23 August 2008


 * 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.