Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software MacKiev
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Software MacKiev (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)
Article was deleted via proposed deletion, and restored as the PROD was contested: [1]. Since the editor requesting restoration has a COI, I'm sending here for a full discussion accordingly. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- delete (or move to draft) in its current state it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG with just a single blog post mention. As Jack Minsky who asked for the refund made it clear they work for the company and thus has a COI they are not in a good position to fix. If they want to try to update it to maybe move to draft and any improvements can be reviewed against WP:NN, WP:COI etc. KylieTastic (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/draft - per reasons stated by KylieTastic. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Borderline spam. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a B2B directory. I don't believe moving it to draft will attract anyone to it to improve it. Clearly the creator(s) should not be editing the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well they have a lot of bluelinks under their wing, some pretty famous at one time -- Mavis Bacon, Print Shop, World Book. If they had developed all that, that alone would make them notable IMO. But they didn't, they just own them now, and "at one time" was a while back for most of these and the maintenance is probably pretty minimal. The exception being Family Tree Maker which appears to get fair amount of notice from ancestry sites. But again, they didn't make it, they just bought it. I would still say "Keep" even so, if there were enough references to make a decent article. Is there? Bloomberg give them a bare notice. here is a bit more. And that's about it: End Of Goggle, 14 results. Probably not enough to make a decent article, so delete I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete- This is pretty spammy and poorly sourced, and there is no real indication that it can be improved to meet any of our inclusion criteria. Reyk YO! 07:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I still confirm my PROD; simply that the company asks for it again with no actual or anything close to convincing basis, is not enough to keep altogether. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.