Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CxQL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Notability not proved. SilkTork *YES! 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CxQL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
COI self promotion for a non-notable software tool. Independent WP:reliable sources neither cited nor found in search, failing WP:PRODUCT • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what about these:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortify_Software, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverity, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klocwork, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ounce_Labs
We're legitimately talking about our technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CxQL (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about article x? falls under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. However since you asked, a quick check shows that 3 of the articles cite at least some references from reliable published media. Two are tagged for {{advert}} cleanup. Those articles will be fixed or weeded out in due course. The CxQL article is blatant (and now acknowledged) self promotion without any reliable references to support its claims. Your repeated removal of cleanup tags to fix problems clinched it for me. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It takes time to add info and references to the article. Please allow time to do so. CxQL talk, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable software. Once it becomes notable per Wikipedia standards, the article can be started. LinguistAtLarge 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability for this software. MuZemike (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (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.