Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimaveraReader (software)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

PrimaveraReader (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software with insufficient sources. A Google search did not reveal any independent in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review: Current sources are a press release, 2 listings, and 2 reviews which both fail Wikipedia's criteria for independent reliable third-party sources. Ref #4 is a typical advertorial with lots of generalized praise, PR-speak and a convenient "Buy now" link, but little professional in-depth analysis of the tool. Roughly 6 of the "review"'s 7 paragraphs do not contain any objective factual information. Ref #5 takes a more critical look, but receives sales commissions for some of their reviews (kudos for the site's open and transparent disclosure). Such a source fails to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional info: The article is part of a SPA-created series on Seavus products. Two previous attempts to speedy-delete it have been removed by a new account. GermanJoe (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Promotional article that lets the reader know all about the product's features without ever establishing (or even asserting) notability. References are self-published or commercial. ubiquity (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments: In a discussion on the talk page, creator rejected adding a few words about related third-party software to Primavera (software) and redirecting there. Attempted speedy reverted by Single-purpose account with no reason given. ubiquity (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only available sources are press releases and other low quality sources. Fails WP:GNG.- MrX 11:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't have the reliable, independent sourcing it would need to meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Not notable and promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2016 (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.