Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Projects .NET (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Easy_Projects_.NET_(2nd_nomination)

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Projects .NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Reason

Contested proposed deletion; this article has been speedily deleted once before as obvious advertising. Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. The article's only claim to historical or technical importance of the sort that would make this software package a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article is a claim to have been a "finalist" for consideration to a minor industry award that confers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker, the award it didn't win, and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudHowie (talk • contribs) 7 February 2012

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Of the references listed, all are blogs or the company website.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: only BNET's blog entry may be found somehow conforming to what is expected for notability proof, but (1) it is too promotional to be considered reliable source, (2) it is more about the concept of online project management then the software itself and (3) it is the only source theoretically usable as a proof of notability, which is not enough for both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (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.