Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin (software) (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. The only "keep" comments are not based on Wikipedia's general guidelines for inclusion based on notability. Those arguing to delete the article have made convincing arguments that the software is not notable as established by the guidelines for determining whether software is notable. Searches reveal very little significant third party software. Consensus is to delete the article.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 16:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Merlin (software)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mere promoting the product for the sake of features published in blog and creating an article on Wikipedia does not stands a chance for encyclopedia material. Light2021 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP: The article isn't depending on any features published in blog. It simply informs about the positioning of the software variants, their initial releases and their main usage. It should be kept because it is a standard application like MS Project, but for the Mac. References to the blog are removed. Thanks. --EStam (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * KEEP: This information is like any other software product related wikipedia article, don't understand, why Light2021 wants to delete this one? MS Project does have an article in Wikipedia, as Merlin is a Mac only product like MS Project for Apple users, this article should be kept. --Toni (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Umm, "", would you mind explaining ? menaechmi (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck this comment as it was made by EStam in an attempt to sway the discussion.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 16:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Sources mentioned in the previous AfD: (MacWorld),  (MacUser),  (TechRadar). Statements like "it is a standard application like MS Project" or "Merlin is a Mac only product like MS Project for Apple users" aren´t reasons with great weight in AfD. Available sources show notability of this software, but the article has other problems, mainly promotional style (still apparent, but was much worse) and high number of SPA editors (eg. in the previous AfD). Pavlor (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Pavlor that's a good tip. Would you please name the areas with promotional style so one could correct them? --EStam (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * After first look I thought another sales brochure, but on second look it is not that bad. Pavlor (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete since it seems the 2 Keeps are from WP:COI connections or strongly resembling them; as for the article, there are clear WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Promotion concerns, policies of which cannot be exchanged for notability guidelines as the latter are not established as policy. The current information and sources are simply firsthand or rehashed announcements or notices and that's not independent reliable and significant for WP:Notability, this being enough to withstand support in the noted policies. SwisterTwister   talk  22:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per . Fails WP:NSOFT and the keep votes are clearly from connected accounts.  An SPI may be in order.    Dr Strauss   talk   please use when replying 11:48, 3 August 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.