Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonware (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   delete. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Non notable web content. Article lacks third party sources displaying noability and I was unable to find any in a search. This article was deleted at AFD two years ago but it appears that it was recreated shortly after without any one noticing. The tone of the article in general is marketspeak: "To reach for global interoperability, the software helps project leaders collaborate internally and externally with project leaders of business partners industry-wide, so that applications can be built that interoperate across all enterprises involved." MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

'''[The Commonware article is an educational and innovational guide to share methods to enhance industry-wide concepts. There are many articles on Wikipedia that contain market speak terms, but are still very informative for readers to exchange knowledge and share information. Mr. Ollie forgets what the purpose of Wikipedia is to compose articles that are informative and helpful for the reader's benefit. (This article should not be deleted or removed)]''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda overton (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically you're saying WP:USEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — Linda overton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — no edits outside this afd. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- when it becomes a notable company, no prejudice against its recreation. The marketspeak (in both the article and Ms. Overton's defense of the article here) should not be relevant, although it is paradigmatic of the unique synergy between facilitators and deliverables in both local and global contexts. J L G 4 1 0 4  20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda overton (talk • contribs)
 * Note: Saying the same argument over and over again doesn't make you right. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts, and please don't put everything in brackets. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found not a single mention in google news archive search.  Seems not-notable to me.  Cazort (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this looks like a marketing attempt for a non-notable software package. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious attempt at advertising. SkipSmith (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not-notable and written like a advertisement. Frozenevolution (talk) 12:04, 24 February 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.