Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CostPerform

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) 22:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CostPerform[edit]

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

Has no reliable sources to pass WP:PRODUCT. PROD failed, so now let's try AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claim to notability per WP:GNG. All of the references cited are product marketing, and that's all I can find about it online. Uncle Roy (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Joe Decker provided a concise summary of the article issues when rejecting the AfC submission on 5 May, but the article author uploaded it to mainspace the next day. The various product listings and its use in one EY case study are sufficient to verify existence but do not establish notability of the product. Nor are my own searches finding better than routine product / licensing announcements. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: I have removed the proposed deletion notice because of the following reasons: 1. has multiple reliable sources. Not only the study performed by EY but also other online sources 2. Comparable Wikipedia pages about business software such as BluePrism, Anaplan, Jedox etc. contain similar information and similar sources. 3. The multiple independent sources show proof of notability of the software since they show that the software is being used in multiple countries, multiple industries, a large number of companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericvandervorst (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable. Most sources not independent. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - EY study mentions CostPerform exactly once as software used in an example. All other sources either establish that it exists or are from the company itself.Tobyc75 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reasons given in rejected AfC submission. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 14 May 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.