Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBML


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

XBML
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of Notability and Commercial Advertising Nickmalik (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The page describes a self-titled method specific to a single software product. Method is not notable. It has not been adopted by researchers or other products. No papers have been written in the research community and no third-party (neutral) sources can be found. The software company has been able to sell the product to a number of companies. However, use of a product does not make the method notable. (It doesn't even make the product notable). The only conceivable reason for this page to exist, therefore, is to build the credibility of the software product itself. The page is therefore advertising. On the basis of lack of notability and advertising, I nominate this page for deletion. Nickmalik (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, unambiguous advertising: ....enables consistent, complete and detailed business process models to be created, and provides a disciplined methodology to describe a business and its underlying processes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smerdis above. OSbornarfcontribs. 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: file format of some software, even if named, doesn't become notable because it is used or useful. File formats can be properly reviewed and analyzed (see DOC (computing), Office Open XML or OpenDocument for examples within a single industry), and I see no evidence that this format was ever found notable enough to invest some effort in reviewing or analyzing it. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (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.