Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyve MDM

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. czar 08:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyve MDM

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

Promotional article created by the WP:SPA product vendor editing on a WP:ROLE account, referenced only by their marketing page for the product. No indication of notability per WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not unambiguously promotional because all information stated is neutral. The article is going through history to features' description. If by any moment, there is an advertising content, I would be glad to rephrase my sentences. Before asking for deletion, I wish contributors were participating in the content´s modification and evolution. OpenContrib 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teclib-Edition (talk • contribs)

Now that this article is at Articles for deletion, the issue is not just possible promotion, but lack of notability and independent sourcing. Please see WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NSOFT - I can find no independent sources of information. The software is relatively new (started in 2015) and appears to be open source that is still in development (there is a statement that it will be available in fall 2016). So this is too soon, and unfortunately the article was created by user Teclib-Edition, and Teclib is the name of the company that lists the software. Smacks of WP:PROMO. Teclib-Edition, you do need to abide by conflict of interest policies. If your software is truly successful, someone neutral will create an article for it. LaMona (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2016 (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.