Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShieldUI

ShieldUI

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

Instead of rushing to delete the article, how about some guidelines to improve it. The link to stackoverflow was meant to verify that many people are using this software. If that does not make it notable I do not know what will. I also included links to html5 report, which is a secondary source. All links linking to shieldiu page are meant to explain more about the company. Also, in addition to the HTML5 report page, here are some more reources. Let me know if you want me to add these to the article as well: http://www.einpresswire.com/article/176985832/shield-ui-launches-free-online-service-reportivo-for-generating-and-sharing-interactive-charts http://shieldui.blogspot.com/2013/12/shield-ui-charts-variety-range-bar-chart.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3d5myIDBoc all these from users not affiliated to shieldui in any way. Let me know if there is need to add any more content or alter the article.

Additionally. This article, and the resources cited are not much different than this for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infragistics

This article uses the same types of resources and references. Some of the links do not even work. The others are paid publications. I do not see how this establishes any more of a usability credibility. I believe I have supplied more than enough resources and forum threads to verify the notability of the entry. Deleting it would constitute a double standard, and I believe should not be allowed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David.johnson.dave (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think leaving this article will bring more goods than bads for the Wikipedia readers. It is being referred to in product comparison and other pages that have the sole purpose of helping the users pick a product among other products - there is no advertising, marketing, proclamations or any other promotional material in these pages. Vdg990 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some fairly extensive searching and a contested PROD tag, I am still unconvinced that this software is sufficiently notable. Much of the text currently present in the article is referenced to the company's own website; other sources are written by the article's creator (if I'm correct in assuming that "d.johnson.dave" and "User:David.johnson.dave" are the same person). This is just a list of search results. There seems to be very little significant coverage in reliable, non-primary, non-COI sources available. Super Mario Man 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]