Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syspro


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Syspro

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I was going to prod2 this, but it seems like this was previously prodded before. May as well get this before AFD instead of waiting for the prod to be declined in 4 days.

Reason given was: Non-notable software company. Only sources provided are routine mentions and/or self-published. No independent sigcov to establish notability. (proposed by )

I substantially agree with the prod rationale, almost all of the coverage I found were from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still delete per my original rationale. Thanks and apologies for my oversight. Jdcooper (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment tons of coverage in the trade press. It also got reviewed and compared to other systems in Forbes (which explicitly says that payment doesn't affect the review) and here  where they make a big deal of being objective. Whether that sort of coverage makes the product notable, or the company or neither, I leave to others unless I find more sources. Park3r (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article is marketing bumpf and Forbes has a disclaimer at the bottom that it is solely the opinion of the author - who isn't an expert on ERP systems or computing in general and is a freelance writer (among other things). If you're going to quote a disclaimer on Forbes (payment doesn't affect review, etc) at least be thorough enough to find all the disclaimers.  HighKing++ 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that aren't just marketing/PR any meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 21:16, 6 September 2023 (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.