Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usercart


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Usercart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to me to fail a number of criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article: This page has been deleted a number of times: There has not yet been a formal deletion discussion. I guess the article could be SALT-d, but I think it should be discussed before that, even if only to allow future WP:G4 speedy deletion. As always, please do tell my why I am wrong about this, or about anything at all about my Wikipedia edits. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NSOFTWARE
 * WP:CORPDEPTH for the corporate entity that wrote or allowed for the software to be written
 * WP:GNG for the both the software and corporate entity that wrote or allowed for the software to be written
 * 15:52, January 18, 2017 Ritchie333 deleted page Usercart (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
 * 16:09, December 15, 2015 Jimfbleak deleted page Usercart (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: posted by the company, spam)
 * 00:08, January 9, 2009 Rjd0060 deleted page Usercart (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Non notable software.)
 * 19:24, November 10, 2008 Anthony Appleyard deleted page Usercart (G11: Blatant advertising)
 * Delete Can't find sources indicating notability. The single-purpose account that created the article and has been adding links to other sections claims in this edit that the company has a turnover of 1.6 million pounds, and is one of the most popular ecommerce engines in the UK, both claims without a source. I can only find this link about a defunct company. The user titled a link to the product's contact page as "Notable software citation", which looks like an attempt to mislead. Unless sources can be found, a clear-cut case of non-notability. Greenman (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This needs independent sources but has none. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article creator sent me a note that said a piece of software you download and put on a web server is not technically "web content" as defined under the strict rules of WP:CSD, and while that may be a point, at best that'll just mean we end up here instead. Anyway, a complete blank under news and book sources, and absolutely no indication of notability whatsoever. I'm curious what does this software give me that a typical Wordpress shopping cart plugin doesn't? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - As impressive as it is that they had the creativity to claim 11k downloads on their website, and then cleverly cite their own site as "Notable Software Citation", and claim to be one of the most downloaded such programs in the UK (as if geography is important), it's probably more impressive that an open web search only returns about 300 results of any type. I'm pretty sure nearly any word-letter combination beats that. For science: "Antelope Y" gets 15k results, "Beard R" 68k, "Unemployment S" 17k, and "Backspace L" 1k (thanks random word generator). Timothy Joseph Wood  19:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I have no idea why the nom though it was a good idea to remove my speedy delete tag from the article and instead bring it here to waste everyone's time, but in any case here is my vote. Shameless advertising of an unnotable subject.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:48, 21 January 2017 (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.