Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPM (software)

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 no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 17:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPM (software)

Unremarkable software with no assertion of notability, no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and reads like a press release. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is properly sourced and notability is obvious since it's used by tenth of thousands of companies to help in the EU policy making process. Perhap nominator should reword the article if he/she believes it reads like a press release. Laurent (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the article was created following a request by another user, which proves that some people may be interested in the article. Laurent (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited and no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not review the history extensively, but this seems to establish that this software is a creation of the European government, and the article contains multiple reliable sources. (I have my doubts about The Register, but at least they're independent and edited.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be reliable sources cited, and the software looks notable enough. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are NO secondary sources. The item in 'The Register' does not mention any software. The subject can not be notable just because someone asked for an article, nor simply because it was written for and used (only) by the European Government. Wikipedia has guidelines for notability and this software seems not to meet them, the primary sources simply show the software exists and are just pages from the European Government's web site. If anyone can show some real, proper secondary references (by Wikipedia standard) that show notability then they should put them in the article and we can then discuss them, but at this time, none exist, and I can not find any. The guidelines for WP:NOTE are clear, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I see none. Trevor Marron (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Did you read the latest version of the article? This source and that one are clearly secondary sources. I can find more if needed, but it's just a stub and there are already 8 sources. This is getting ridiculous... Laurent (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the tone of your comment immediately above this. I saw the new references, and bar the one in German none of them review, look at in depth or even mention the IPM software, they simply mention 'Interactive Policy Making' and NOT the software they use for this, the two are not one, one is a policy, the other is software, and the article nominated for deletion is about THE SOFTWARE. The German article mentions the software but only in relation to the licencing of the software, and not what the software does or how it achieves it, nor does it comment on the abilities of the software or review it in any way. There may be eight sources, but they can not be regarded as good secondary sources that prove the software is of note, not by a long stretch. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns but again this is just a stub so you can't expect the article to be that detailed. There's a review of the software here: [1]. The EC also reviewed it here. Laurent (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (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.