Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXo Platform

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXo Platform

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

References appear to point to either press releases, unreliable sources, or passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE only revealed more press releases and passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a review in a reliable source which I would consider in-depth. The source already in the article from CMS Wire I would also count as reliable with a professional editorial team. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? CMSWire looks to me like an SEO-y industry blog more than a reliable source, to me. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 13:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does a single review count as [[Wikipedia:SIGCOV? Wqwt (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the sigcov needed to establish WP:NSOFT. Sources like www.theserverside.com seem to be directly tied to the team that runs EXo, with the articles cited using language like "After we had developed a Learning Management System (LMS), we decided to provide a custom web site as the basis for a Learning Content Management System (LCMS)", and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for independent sourcing. The same goes for the www.infoq.com sources. The FCW article is more significant, but only briefly makes mention of EXo Platform [1]. In short, EXo Platform definitely exists but its existence has not resulted in the in-depth, independent third party sources needed to establish encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent, significant source appears to be the PCMag UK found by Elahrairah. Other articles are in PR wires although the sites themselves are sort of stealthy about it. For example, this "Digital Journal" article is actually a press release, the article in "The Server Side" claims it is independent but it is owned by a B2B a marketing network, the CMSWire article is similarly not truly an independent journalistic organization. These marketing platforms exist specifically to give the impression of media coverage to marketing clients. They are not evidence of complying with either WP:GNG or applicable SNG's (i.e., WP:NSOFT or WP:NCORP). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with points by Eggishorn. No significant coverage. Wqwt (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello, I want to have acces on the page to modify the sources ... Otherwise, quote me the references to remove and the necessary recommendations to optimize this page and to be publish...Bjaouane (talk)14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked multiple times in the help IRC channel to provide sources to establish notability, and you've been unable to. Additionally, as other editors have mentioned here, we've been unable to locate sources ourselves. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 14:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Alfie says, the problem isn't that there are bad references in the article that need to be removed, the problem is that there aren't any good ones. The above isn't an argument to keep the article so much as it is a statement that you don't understand why other editors are objecting to the article. The links given above should help with that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:00, 22 February 2018 (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.