Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RhodeCode Enterprise (software) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RhodeCode_Enterprise_(software)

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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RhodeCode Enterprise (software) (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, redirect unnecessary Deunanknute (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the main one that distugishes product from the company, it's more notable then other on that code review page that i cross linked it. Someone on that page already removed software that doesn't have links in wikipedia i find that this link is important to stay. We're shipping now 3 major products one of them is RhodeCode Enterprise and it's important to distinguish that from the company Marcinkuzminski (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The software itself is not notable separate from the company per WP:PRODUCT. Other, similar, articles do not impart notability, maybe they should be deleted, per WP:WHATABOUTX. Deunanknute (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Total lack of independent sourcing, does not meet general notability guideline or software notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sourcing provided. Article for parent company also appears to lack adequate sources. RomanSpa (talk) 13:07, 12 February 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.