Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senomix Timesheets


 * 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. Secret account 17:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Senomix Timesheets

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Non-notable software article with no independent and non-trivial sources. Created by SPA. Miami33139 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination; a commercial time tracking system for small and mid-sized offices, yet another bit player in the office software market. Google News finds a single press release.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment in response to this deletion request, I have added a more detailed history to the article to provide relevance and appropriate references. The software is a commercial product focused on the small office market, but that in itself should not affect its notability. Zkeifkaf (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources that you added that might be considered reliable sources all lack the string "Senomix" and are general articles about timekeeping. The ones that actually mention this product are either self-published submissions or download listings, or routine business profile and directory listings.  You certainly have earned your pay here, but I don't think that's good enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'self-published' submissions you've noted were not created by the company but by the sites linked. They may be old and 'puff' pieces, but they're part of the software's history.  There was no pay earned here, thanks.  I've just enjoyed using the software for a few years now and thought it worthy of an article.  It appears that's not sufficient.Zkeifkaf (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Smerdis here. I just looked at each reference added to the article, and they are not about this software. They are about timekeeping or software as a service as general concepts. Miami33139 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. References of that nature make up the bulk of those displayed for most time tracking systems listed on Wikipedia.  The references listed in the linked article are relevant to the content and apparently drove development of the software as noted.  If 'puff' journalism isn't permitted for software notability, you folks have a lot of articles to delete!  Thanks for the feedback.  I'll try posting about this system again after using it for another five years.Zkeifkaf (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Comment: Article has been PRODed before... but I could not find any discussion. I looked for independent articles on the software or company and came up empty. I then nominated for speedy deletion. See User talk:Zkeifkaf. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (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.