Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protrader (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The "delete" reasons are in line with Wikipedia policies & guidelines, while the "keeps" (every one of which is from a single purpose account existing solely to oppose this deletion nomination) aren't: "I know this product very well", " Software with a huge history has a right to be in Wikipedia", etc, do nothing whatever to suggest notability by Wikipedia standards. Some of the comments (e.g. "it gives some actual information for clients") even seem to suggest that the purpose is to use Wikipedia for publicity purposes, which if anything strengthens the case for deletion, not for keeping. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protrader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Difficult to see notability here. Lots of refs but mostly within a very niche market and most seem to be re-publishing press releases or product evaluation. I can see nothing here that even meets WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   10:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  11:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:26, 27 October 2015 (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.