Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProcessMaker

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessMaker

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

non notable. Utterly trivial awards, and press releass as sources DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks quality independent sources. Sources given are news releases and self-published items.174.119.49.210 (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant hits online, except for blogs and press releases: no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not seeing evidence of notability for this as a product or for its company under this or its previous name. Nor are the listed awards notable in themselves. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2017 (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.