Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResourceSpace


 * 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. Consensus is clear that the SIGCOV requirement of GNG is not met. Just for anyone reading who is trying to learn how to get an article "kept", the lone "keep" !vote here is the wrong way to do it. Be specific. Point to specific reliable sources that meet the requirements of GNG, and why those sources suffice. Stating that "There's Google results" is a very weak argument that will be mostly ignored by AfD closers in most circumstances. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

ResourceSpace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for non-notable software; there are unsourced claims to it being used by major companies, but thousands of non notable products of all sorts have been at one time or another used in some minor way by notable companies--they're the market for everything that's business-related--we're not a directory of enterprise software. Almost all the features are pure routine. There are unsourced claims for being "among the first" for some of them.  DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not technically innovative, not commercially a big player, distinct lack of 3rd party attention paid to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep object, on the grounds that, on reading the notability guidelines, the software clearly has had "significant coverage" (a Google search verifies this). If there were issues with notability the process "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" should have been followed first giving authors the chance to respond via the notability tag. Going straight to deletion proposal is very heavy handed for an article that has existed for over 12 years and has had contributions from many authors ensuring neutrality and appropriateness. Dan Huby (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dan Huby has COI here. DMacks (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Andy Dingley.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cannot find any material WP:RS on this that would support a GNG or NSOFT case; certainly no WP:SIGCOV by any RS on ResourceSpace. Britishfinance (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've found a few sources in books, but none are in-depth per SIGCOV. There are some Google scholar sources, but again, not in depth. The nominator was an academic librarian at a major university, so he should know. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2019 (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.