Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ispmanager

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ispmanager

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—there isn't enough similarity with the page deleted in 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISPmanager (2nd nomination) for G4 to apply—but the same arguments still apply; I'm not seeing anything to indicate any particular significance. Web server software is most definitely not my area, so I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is in fact notable, but as it stands I'm seeing nothing to indicate that anything has changed in the last 14 years. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the article! I understand your concerns regarding the lack of perceived significance or changes over the past 14 years. However, I'd like to stress that the subject in question—one of the popular web hosting control panels—has seen significant global expansion in recent years, particularly within the last two years. This growth alone suggests an ongoing relevance and importance within its industry.

The company just recently participated in CloudFest in March 2025 https://www.ispmanager.com/news/ispmanager-is-a-partner-and-participant-of-cloudfest-2025 and partnered with one of the biggest hosting provider in Turkey in January 2025 https://sh.com.tr/isp-manager-lisans

Additionally, a lack of familiarity with web server software is mentioned in the text of the deletion request, so it's important to note that many experts and users within the community recognize its value and impact. The article aims to reflect these developments and provide a comprehensive overview of the subject's role and influence.

If you have any specific feedback on any particular parts of the article that should be updated or corrected to make it more significant in your opinion, let me know. Once again, we aim to provide the most comprehensive overview of the subject and willing to specify any misunderstanding or clarify all the things as long as they are concrete and specific.

Thanks! Flantru (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like LLM generated nonsense and none of it is relevant to Wikipedia's definition of notability. My "concrete and specific" advice is to find and cite independent, reliable sources about the subject. Toadspike [Talk] 17:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: ispmanager is reasonably notable in the field, though it's definitely among the "fringe" software that you hear exists but never try. I personally support deletion based on the lack of sources beyond listicles or primaries, but 1 or 2 reliable sources establishing actual notability beyond my personal feelings about it would be enough for me to change vote to keep. I did not find such sources, maybe someone else can. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 10:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per top-5 independent rating. The weak comes from a lack of truly usable sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous discussion, soft deletion not possible, but discussion leaning in that direction. Without more analysis demonstrating reliable sourcing, an assertion of popularity is hard to give much weight to. Further discussion on sourcing (or its absence) would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources are primary and the ones that aren't don't indicate notability. It reads like it was either LLM or promotional content. It doesn't seem like there's enough coverage to keep. ^Wiinter_U 04:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Half of the refs are self-published by their own company. (refs #1, #3, #4, #6–11, #13) and some WP:RS concerns for ref #15 on the article. Ref #6 does not explicitly cite the sentence either. Primary sources is also an issue because nine references are from Ispmanager or affiliates from theirs. Editz2341231 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2025 (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.