Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM PureQuery

IBM PureQuery

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dialectric with the following rationale "google books search shows numerous mentions. redirect may be in order, but that can be discussed without a prod". I am not averse to a redirect (through to where, I am not sure) but as a stand-alone article this does not seem to pass. The references do not pass muster: yes, there are mentions in books, but they are mostly in passing. The software does have a section devoted to it in several books, through rather then any analysis of significance those sections seem to be how-to-use manauls, technical and going on for a page or so. There is no single work on this topic, and few short mentions in niche textbooks don't seem to qualify for NSOFTWARE "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews". Nothing I can find supports this passing that or WP:N. Seems like software-spam, particularly considering the language (this has been tagged as an advert for 5+ years now...). I think IBM has enough adevertising budget it doesn't need us to help them - we are not the directory of software (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]