Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resoomer

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resoomer

[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)

Has heavy coverage in industry press release type venues, but doesn't make a case for lasting notability, looks like SEO or COI editing. Sadads (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll show my bias here, but this article, and others by the same editor, have plenty of sources in French (and some in Spanish) but I find none in English. I know that in en.wp we are not limited to English language sources, but if a topic has no relevance to an English-speaking audience then I do not see the *informational* value in including it. (I understand the desire on the part of businesses to get into en.wp but I'm not terribly sympathetic to that motive.) Using the logic of this article, we would import every article from every wiki into en.wp, but I don't think that provides the best service to en.wp users. I also agree about the possible COI but have no idea what to do about it. Lamona (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Lamona, I don't see the encyclopedic value here. If this had gone through AfC I suspect the reviewer would have declined it as promo. I think we should just delete it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2024 (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.