Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FiscalityONE ERP MRP WMS


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FiscalityONE ERP MRP WMS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Software with no claim in article of meeting the notability guidelines. Goodfaith google search turns up zero independent sources -- only the company's website, facebook, and other user-submitted content comes up. Prod tag was removed by the article creator without addressing any of the concerns, so here we are. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom, all content is promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep CaySeven (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) The software is notable to its developers, investors, customers (past and present) and users (past and present) for over twenty years. The software is also worthy of note to customers in the market for a new system.  Notability is line with those other many software packages listed in Wikipedia, for various reasons, and external references or citations listing injections of venture funding do not in themselves infer notability, yet seem to be accepted.  After being present in the bespoke market for over two decades, the FiscalityONE entry on wikipedia will be able to cite external references as becomes more publicly known. Yet is still notable.  The article is objective, non-promotional, impartial and in line with the wording of other unchallenged entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaySeven (talk • contribs)
 * Comment And there's the problem. - Wikipedia is not a free marketing channel.  -- HighKing ++ 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of any notability. Very clearly promotional.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject lacks significance and fails to meet WP:NOTE criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTADVERTISING. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SPIP and GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 17:34, 20 July 2017 (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.