Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclipse ERP

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse ERP

[edit]
Eclipse ERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product. References within the article are a mix of the company's own websites, press releases, or articles about the company not the software. The parent company already has its own article at Epicor so there's no justification for this promotional piece. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Have a read through Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion#AfD to see how you should be responding, and please remember to sign your posts in the future. Anyway, the argument that other articles exist is one that you should avoid during these discussions (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) because this discussion is strictly about this article, not others. Now, as I've outlined above, the three problems with your article are A) the General Notability Guideline does not appear to be met; B) the sources used in this article do not meet the requirement for Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources;and C) it has a promotional tone - "PR-speak" sticks out like a sore thumb. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons to keep this article: Market Share, Size, and Historical Significance.--NqcRz (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The promotional tone can be adjusted. It would be helpful to know which sentences need to be paraphrased in different words to meet the requirement? - NqcRz (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This software is nearly 17 years old, there should be at least few reviews (not only online). NqcRz, your references are mostly about parent companies with only passing mentions (at best) of Eclispe ERP. If you could provide some reviews of this software (eg. in published magazines), it would help your cause. Many companies boast magazine awards/ratings for their software, maybe some of the previous owners had such list on its webpage, which we could use (with the help of web archives) in our hunt for better sources. Pavlor (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was absurdly promotional , but since it seems to have been a significant product, based on the market price of the company that made it, I decided to remove the promotionalism . Expecting a promotional author to learn to write a non-promotional article is usually unrealistic; if we are going o keep them, we need to revise them ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you if the promotional language was my only concern, but as I stated in the nomination rationale, the issue is that the GNG isn't met - there's no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, there's just press releases (which aren't independent, reliable sources), mentions in the websites of the various owners and articles about the company rather than the software product itself. The edits you've made have left all these unreliable sources in place, there's no third-party sources (and I've looked). Exemplo347 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's another press release. BusinessWire is a PR website - you need to find Reviews - detailed coverage from an unrelated third party. Press releases are never considered reliable sources. Read through WP:RS - don't just keep adding press releases, articles that all say "Company X bought Company Y" and links to the company's own websites. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added two unrelated third party reviews. One review is a positive, the second is negative. --NqcRz (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    alas, both of them are a company newsletter from a company whose sole business seem to providing 3rd party paid support for Eclipse. NqcRz, do you even look where your refs are coming from? Or didn't you read it carefully enough to understand the connection? If you don't understand the industry well enough to immediately spot this sort of thing, you shouldn't be writing articles about it. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I do understand the connection very well, but didn't think its going to be an issue. I am new to writing on wikipedia, so learning the ropes as we go. Thank you for your guidance and patience. --NqcRz (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I wrote in my first comment above, many companies boast their media coverage on their webpage. These are entries from archived original Eclipse webpage: [1] (The Electrical Distributor Magazine (TED) November 2000), [2] (ASA News March/April 1999), [3] (ASA News March/April 1998; passing mentions only). I don´t know these sources, so I can´t say how independent on Eclipse they are. Pavlor (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is similar version of the article directly from ASA.NET.[4] --NqcRz (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References were updated to show Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as described in WP:NEWSORG. There is still work in progress. --NqcRz (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just more and more PR stuff - regurgitated press releases. My personal recommendation is that you should be asking for the article to be moved into Draft space until you've finished finding sources, and then submitting your draft for review before publishing it. Wikipedia articles are meant to be complete, not works-in-progress. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? WP:BEFORE Heading C states that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.". Reading further under heading D, it appears that incomplete articles are not to be deleted, but rather improved. I am not referring in any way to the article at hand, merely that AfD is about whether the subject matter is deserving of an article, not a judgment of the quality of the article in its current state. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something was not right. Jacona, thank you for pointing out that Exemplo347 is wrong. --NqcRz (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Jacona clearly says, their opinion has no bearing on the current discussion - my reasons for deletion are stated clearly at the top of this discussion and have not been addressed. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exemplo347 is wrong again. Notability, References, and Parent Company were addressed. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Read through WP:NNC and WP:NPOSSIBLE. --NqcRz (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take a breath. This isn't something to be taking personally. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is hard to find subject matter expert that is not affiliated with the company. This is probably why no article existed on this topic up to this point. In this case the "PR" label does not apply to every source. The article's creator is not affiliated with the company, and there was no intention of making it a promotional piece. However if majority decides to delete, then move it to the Draft space, and someone needs to rewrite it. --NqcRz (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to quote policies and guidelines to editors who have more experience in these matters than you. This is a routine process, not aimed at any particular editor, a part of Wikipedia's integrity procedures. Deletion of this article wouldn't mean that the article can never exist. It just means that the General Notability Guideline and the Notability Guideline for Software hasn't been satisfied by the sources that exist. Calm yourself down. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article falls into these categories: "software with significant historical or technical importance" and "Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers may be notable even if it was distributed or documented under pseudonyms." --NqcRz (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. Why don't we let other editors comment now? Both of us have made our point so there's no need for the endless comments. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Be nice to see other editor than the 3 who have !voted chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what an odd comment. Please point out "all the editors" who haven't !Voted. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG? I don't see his vote. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's there and it has been for a while. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to think I just saw the optometrist. Thanks for pointing that Exemplo347 L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 01:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eclipse_ERP&oldid=1071352084"