Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirtoCommerce


 * 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 for deletion and that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. North America1000 03:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

VirtoCommerce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article's sources are all either affiliated with the company, re-postings of press releases, or blog posts. The award listed on the site is a second place mention from 'CMS critic', which appears to be a non-notable blog. I've looked and I haven't found any better sources, so I believe this article does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for software. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's also important to mention that this moderator never gently told me what exactly to fix and never helped me, just deleted, marked and replied "I will say simply, just stop spamming". This is not a way polite people help each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article sources are not all affiliated with the company.
 * 1) The first link is the link to our license as we state in our article that our software is open source. Thus we need to mention the license.
 * 2) The second link is the link to GitHub where we host our open source code. Again, it's a separate website where developers host their open source projects.
 * 3) CodeProject - again, it's a repository of our code but on another developer community platform.
 * 4) Habrahabr is the hugest IT community in Russia with the strong moderation system. They posted our article about the system. This website is not affiliated with us and to post on it you have to have the high rating. It's not a blog post or press-release, it's a description of the system on the high-quality resource.
 * 5) This one is wrong link and can be deleted.
 * 6) This is a press-release, can be deleted.
 * 7) It's a list of code contributors to our product. Can be deleted, but I don't understand what's bad with it?
 * 8) Yes, it's a press-release which explains how the product was created. We can provide more written proofs for this.
 * 9) This is not actual, can be deleted.
 * 10) It's a featured app in Microsoft list. 7th place.
 * 11) It's a personal view of the moderator for CMS Critic. This site is ranked high in Google for ecommerce, just one example - https://screencast.com/t/JHpoVlx6V7W.
 * So, I agree with some comments from the moderator above, but the GitHub links and some other point for deletion can't be treated as negative from my point of view.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Independent reliable sources are needed to prove notability (eg. reviews/articles in published/online magazines, books about article subject etc.). Press-releases are OK for plain verifitability of undisputed content, but their abundance is often sign of lack of better sources. Pavlor (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but why not just deleting the press-releases only? Why do GitHub links or license is treated badly? The moderator doesn't understand the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 09:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is not that these primary and company written sources should not be here or should be 'treated badly', the point is that certain types of sources are required to have an article, and none of the sources currently used in the article are the type that satisfy the article inclusion requirements. We need those sources in addition to what is already there. - MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KonaKart - these guys are published and also have no sources. What's the difference between their page and our page? Andrei Iunisov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a tag on the top of the page saying that that one probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines either. I'm sure someone will get around to nominating it for deletion eventually. Wikipedia is a big place with a lot to do, and there are only so many volunteers to do the work. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's try this again...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Per nom, sources are user-editable, blogs, or not independent. A search turns up incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG as lacking in WP:RS.Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - there sure is a neat and keen wall of text and citations above to defend this advertisement, but I don't see reliable sources that discuss the subject matter in depth. We are a charity not a free web host for others to profit from generous American tax laws. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of notability published by reliable secondary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 27 May 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.