Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasscubes

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. henrik•talk 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glasscubes

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

Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. All offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. LoudHowie (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references in the article. Three sources with two of them by the same person and different publishers – sufficient for WP:GNG. At least the article in ReadWriteWeb implies notability which satisfies WP:NSOFT. I see no reason to delete this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One source is not enough. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one you consider reliable? There are ReadWriteWeb, The Next Web and CMS Wire? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a vendor did a good job of collecting reviews. The list features TechCrunch and BNet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2012 (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.