Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ObjectPro Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ObjectPro

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 Move to draft. There's clear consensus here that the article in its current form does not establish notability, but if somebody wants to work on finding sources, that's always a good WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectPro

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

I can't find references that establish the notability of this commercial software product. Mikeblas (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For one, the links in the article go nowhere. I can't find any good sources in the usual places, and since notability isn't inherited, I think this has to go.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage. Even if the refs in article weren't deadlinks, an online dictionary listing is not significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, this is weird. Absolutely zip on News and Newspapers, but I get quite a few hits on Books. However, this is for software developed in the same timeframe as this article's subject, but the article claims the software was developed by Platinum Technology (etc.). The sources I'm coming up with however, say the software was developed by Trinzic Corp. So I am unsure if this is the same software or not. If it is, there is this, this (which is an excellent reference for notability), this (another good one), this, and this other good one. And those are just from the first page of the Books search. If these are about the same software, than it's a definite keep. If not, then delete. But if the closing admin selects keep, I'd be willing to re-work the article about this other mid-90s software, which is clearly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable sfotware product. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:ObjectPro and allow recreation to allow Onel5969 (talk · contribs) to work on the article with the sources listed above. Onel5969 has volunteered to do the work: "But if the closing admin selects keep, I'd be willing to re-work the article about this other mid-90s software, which is clearly notable." Allow recreation once the article has been reworked.
Cunard (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2015 (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.