Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyEclipse


 * 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 keep and rewrite.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

MyEclipse

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't believe this software/company warrants an encyclopedia article, and as of now, the article is written like an advertisement. SaveThePoint 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be curious as to why you feel we do not warrant a page. We have over 1.2 million Google links, over 500,000 users of our product and have been in business in this highly competitive industry since 1996. We have been sited in multiple books and other published works as a leader in developer productivity and learning. Over 80% of the Fortune 100 companies are our customers. I fail to see how we are somehow illegitimate.

The article in question states only factual information and is not arbitrary. Any claims made are backed up directly with reference or are easily verifiable. Compared to other comparable tools, we have followed suit in form, function and neutrality.Jense 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article contain only one reference. If you could supply the rest (the books where are you cited for example, as these are easily verifiable, but not easily findable), perhaps there would be less doubt about notability --Mpx 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well known IDE. The article is not written like an advertisement. Rather baffled by the nomination. Maralia 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.  -- Gavin Collins 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Citi Cat   ♫  03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as I was able to find a couple of newspaper articles in ProQuest that discuss MyEclipse, but I'm not sure if they were originally sourced from a press release (and I can't link them, it's not a public database). It would certainly help if the author(s) of the article would add some neutral verifiable sources. --Darkwind (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I wonder if Maralia was thinking of Eclipse (software), which is what MyEclipse is based off of. That is a well known software IDE, but I think MyEclipse is considerably lesser well known and not used as often.  However, I easily found numerous news articles relating to MyEclipse (as did Darkwind) and it was easy to find many reputable software development websites that contain pages dedicated to providing information about MyEclipse.  This article however needs a lot of work.  It reads like a company press release, and needs to be reworked to be neutral.  --Keithn 05:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Very Weak Keep Normally I am a notorious deletionist but I have heard of this software. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any Notable news articles on this beyond rehashed press releases from the company and blogs stating tips on how to get the most out of the IDE.  Personally, I would ask that the article be removed for now and moved to someone's sandbox, cleaned up, added notable, reliable and verifiable sources beyond the company's own website (something like PC World or the New York Times...something beyond a trade magazine).  Only reason I vote keep is because I have a feeling there may be something out there in a magazine. Well, at least we have 7 days to find it and cite it...otherwise...well...-- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 07:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a non-notable commercial derivative of freely available software. I did not even know this existed until I saw this AfD. The fact that the author used the word "We" implies that it was written by the company itself. If I saw this, I would have CSD'ed it. The company itself also is non-notable and should be deleted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The article's creator removed the deletion notice immediately after the nomination; I re-added it today. - Mike Rosoft 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the notion this software is non-notable and a derivative of free software, the claim is false. Over half of the software included in the distribution is proprietary, and the value add of the software is in its integration of open source tools that are notorious for incompatibility. Not sure of the agenda to remove, as all other tools in this space are allowed to remain, many of which have far fewer users and notoriety.

Mike - sorry about the deletion. Inadvertent.

As for notable references to the product...

Jense 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CRN
 * eWeek
 * InfoWorld
 * InfoWorld
 * SD Times
 * Dallas Business Journal
 * Java Developers' Journal
 * Eclipse Magazine (Germany)
 * Computer Business Review
 * Application Development Trends aka ADT


 * Keep IF more references are added to article. I think it is notable, but perhaps more references should be put in the article as proof --Mpx 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite this reads like an advertisement­, price listing and all. I used it in the past so I can vouch for its popularity (not notability). References up here look good. Still, complete rewrite needed. -- Kl4m  Talk Contrib 14:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as this artilce reads like spam. --Gavin Collins 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant advertising, non-notable software. Keb25 11:12, 19 September 2007 (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.