Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewpath

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpath

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion, removed by an IP number. Another minor "project management" software that makes no specific claim to historical or technical importance of the sort needed to sustain an encyclopedia article. "Reference" supplied is apparently to a programming blog, not a reliable source. Article is full of puffery and other indicia of unambiguous advertising:

The application is modeled on project management best practices with customizable activity dashboards. With AJAX, there is no lag time for changes. You can start a page without all the details and not be forced to make a decision prematurely

These sorts of things need real historical and technical importance, not simply trade press coverage and reviews, unless we are acquiescing in allowing Wikipedia to be come a free web host for every project management software package. Some Google News coverage, but it all appears to be minor mentions in lists of similar products, or press releases. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per the source and in the article and this. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the cited source "The AppGap" is a blog [1], and so is "A Girl's Guide to Project Management"[2]; they would appear not to pass full muster as reliable sources. Both would also appear to be focused on the office software trade, and as such can't really confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided are not significant coverage in RS. Miami33139 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not assert the notability of its subject. Without a claim of specific significance or notability any presumption of notability established by sources would be overturned per the arguments made at WP:MILL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2009 (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.