Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Printexpert


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Printexpert

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable software product. Apparently a custom-built document assembler that was sold to a few clients but never made much of a splash. The only cited links indicate that a trademark was filed, but even that was apparently abandonded. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. If all articles on non-notable software were as clearly and neutrally written as this one, I wouldn't have so many easy targets.  Unfortunately, I find nothing in Google news/books/scholar that looks like a reliable source for this, and it does not seem to have been noted for any technical or other significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Full disclosure - I was managing the team and designed components of this software, however, I am not in anyway currently affiliated with the company or benefit financially from this mention.  So I don't know if that is a + for being a reference or a - for having had prior association.  Ayazskhan (talk)
 * Comment: Is your assertion that the software should be "published" and indexed by Google in order to be notable? There are some indirect mentions of the software if you search for PrintExpert and Omaha within Google.  Also it is mentioned in a developer's profile. I think the point I am making is that between the Omaha region, various companies, developers geographically distributed in Asia and US, and end-users (Omaha, Kansas City), the product did get sold and used. Does notability have to be global or is regional ok? And does the product have to be sold actively? I cannot verify if it is still sold, however, it may still be used by companies under support.  And, I do not have the full list of customers. However, if the information I provided needs to be verifiable with a simple google search, then I understand your assertion for deletion.Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the maker of this software doesn't have an article by itself, then its software shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Also, I can't find any RS coverage whatsoever. This is the first article by the user who created it. Go easy on him by userfying it. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks. The company mentions it as a service offering. However, if you do a google search for PrintExpert and "Ex-Cel Solutions" you will find 34 unique mentions. The product, the company and its presence is not exactly obscure.  I don't know if that makes it notable, however, keep in mind, there was a time when everything was not online.  I am sure there are non-pdf documents floating around.Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I found no coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google = notability?Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – After some searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic's notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: What I claim as verifiable: 1) the company that created the software exists, 2) the software did exist as shown by the USPTO filing, 3) There are linkedIn profiles of people that developed the software and mention it by name, 4) There are 34 independent mentions of the company and software product in Google, 5) The links do indicate the software was used for automating documents.Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no argument that this software exists (or existed), or that the company that created it exists (or existed). The point here is that mere existence is not the threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia.  The software must have been considered notable - that is it must have been a significant development in the history of software or in the history of the company (which would then, itself, need to be notable).  Since the software itself does not appear to have been notable (there have been any number of products that performed the same or similar functions), nor does the producing company appear to have been notable, and since no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources has been found, this software does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:16, 19 February 2012 (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.