Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xpress Engine

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. postdlf (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xpress Engine

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

I saw that a PROD has recently been edit-warred over by IP editors, so I had a look at the article, and I have found no evidence at all of notability. The article contains no references, and the external links are all to the product's own web site. Google searches have also failed to produce any evidence of notability. The first Google hits were the company's own web site, the Wikipedia article, a download site, another page on the company's own web site, Facebook, Twitter, a comparison page that merely listed a few features, a forum, five more pages on the company's own web site, and then a spam page, advertising a product unrelated to Xpress Engine, but quoting text from the Wikipedia article Xpress Engine, evidently in an attempt to pull in custom from people searching for it ... and so it goes on through the other hits. Nothing anywhere even remotely suggests notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent reliable sources to support a claim of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Found stuff about trains, but not this CMS. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2013 (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.