Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPiServer (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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

EPiServer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have not found any significant coverage, only a whole lot of press releases. Haakon (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - per CSD A7. No mention or evidence of notability as a corporation. Article appears to me to exist solely for the purpose of advertisement. -- Pump me  up  08:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's clearly not speedy material--it's hardly promotional sounding and it's been around for over a year, and the previous AfD was a Keep. That said, I haven't seen any improvement, it's a stub without notability, and the previous AfD reasons to keep seem to have been proven wrong by time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. You obviously haven't bothered to search google books. First hit: . Doesn't look like a press release to me. I agree the article could use some expansion, but I'm no expert on this. The sad choice of Wikipedia today seems to: either someone with a wp:coi, who knows a lot about this, develops the article, and it gets deleted as g11, or it gets deleted because it's not sufficiently developed (citing independent sources etc.) Pcap ping  21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. You obviously haven't bothered to search google books. First hit: . Doesn't look like a press release to me. I agree the article could use some expansion, but I'm no expert on this. The sad choice of Wikipedia today seems to: either someone with a wp:coi, who knows a lot about this, develops the article, and it gets deleted as g11, or it gets deleted because it's not sufficiently developed (citing independent sources etc.) Pcap ping  21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Keep?? I added the ref Pcap found. That seems to be virtually the only reliable source though - agree google news produces a poor result. At least the WP article text is neutral! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a Content Management System marketed by EPiServer AB.  Absolutely nothing suggests that this particular product has any encyclopedic significance as opposed to hundreds of similar products. (Most of the other products in its category should not have separate articles either.)  Merely being the subject of a subheading in a book about Pro scalable .NET 2.0 application designs (now there's a page-turner) does not confer encyclopedic significance on this run of the mill software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability or significance whatsoever. And, of course, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit. GregorB (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2010 (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.