Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebMethods

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 keep. Going with the keeps here - clean up clean up clean up

We're happy to welcome the article back to AfD if these newly found citations and cleanup efforts don't pan out.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 years of being tagged with notability and advertising issues; no evidence it meets WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE fails to find anything other than press releases and business-as-usual entries. Acquired a while ago by Software AG which makes for a valid redirect target. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the tags were added in 2010, and quite a bit of improvement has been done since then. I am biased, since as noted above, spent several recent days working on replacing the promos with neutral language paraphrased from more reliable and independent sources. It still could use more work, but any deletion-worthy issues should be taken care of, unless someone points out specifics that remain. My propose is to delete or merge the four product articles I mentioned above into this one, since those are more clearly just product guides, with no independent sources at all. W Nowicki (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the product articles into this one makes sense to me. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - I just removed the promo banner from the article because I couldn't see them, and you claim that they did exist at one point and you fixed it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (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.