Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince XML


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 07:44Z 

Prince XML

 * — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Furthermore, it's a potential vanity article created by a single purpose account who is also the CEO of the company behind the product. The only other Wikipedia articles that link to this article are those edited by the original author to promote his product or company. -- Longhair\talk 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect: the Acid2 article also links to Prince, and it is Prince passing the Acid2 test that is the primary notability criterion in the web standards community. (I have added an additional link on the Prince XML article to the announcement by the Web Standards Project). Michael Day 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Longhair\talk 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as corporate vanity. So tagged. Note that the maker of this product was speedily deleted under CSD A7. MER-C 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment removed the speedy tag - not appropriate for things being considered via AfD. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and EditGravity Talk 08:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Why should a product by an unremarkable corporation be kept? MER-C 09:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable software in the XML/CSS area, regardless of the corporation that created it. The article is about the software, not the corporation. Charivari 01:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete  as not meeting WP:SOFTWARE notability standard. If the article YesLogic had not been deleted, one would be able to argue that notability had been met by satisfaction of the criterion "the software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor."  However, YesLogic has been deemed 'nonnotable'.  Further, there is a single item of press coverage associated with the article rather than the "multiple" suggested by the notability standard.  If a couple more independent press items could be produced in support of notability, I would reconsider changing to 'keep' - but that is not the current case. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) The O'Reilly references do kick it over into notability in my opinion; the Acid2 test announcement is more of a certification of a property by an accepted body, which can be achieved by notable and non-notable software alike.  It remains unfortunate that the originating comapany is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards, but that is not absolutely essential given other satisfied criteria.  Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to an announcement by the Web Standards Project regarding Prince XML passing their Acid2 test and also citations for two books from O'Reilly that each devote a section to Prince XML. Is this a sufficient number of independent press items? Michael Day 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Borderline, but notable enough, I feel. The fact that the article was created by someone created to the company is regrettable, but why should that make the article deletable in and of itself? Lankiveil 06:00, 1 January 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.