Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WinDev

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:WinDev[edit]

Reads more like an advert than an encyclopaedia article. Adam9007 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to need TNT or deletion. IF TNT, then there is not going to be much of an article left. Should have been deleted via G11, methinks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i'm the author of the WinDev Page.

First I will repeat again what I have always said and affirmed: I do not work for pc soft and I do not advertise. I'm sorry if I missed my lens, and if this article looks like an advertisement. I would have preferred to have help than criticism to write it, but the help is also criticism sometimes ...

The problem is that this magnificent program (WinDev) has been around for 27 years, and there is no article on Wikipedia in English. so I got excited... too much perhaps probably... This paid IDE is the leader in Europe and especially in France. People on wikipedia dared to say it was porn... a publicly traded company that owns clients of international stature. So, I'm sorry, I wanted to do something, I failed. It's not WinDev that's not good, it's probably my article.I just regret that I was not told more the lines that disturbed, I would have removed them. Sorry for bothering.If you have any questions I would answer them. Despite my login, I'm French, my English is probably very very perfectible. But I made an effort to write it as best as possible...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb1c:d1a:d100:d4ff:2b96:473e:9cb8 (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:TNT. Despite authors best efforts, there is almost nothing we can use from this draft. Foremost, there are no WP:GNG-compatible independent reliable in-depth sources, so I'm not sure it's even notable. Furthermore, all current content is supported by primary or connected/biased sources, if cited at all, so almost none of it is usable besides some very basic facts. The Register looks good as as source, but the content is barely a couple sentences. There may potentially be sources in French, although I wouldn't know where to begin looking. As I commented on now-deleted talk page, we need reception, criticism, real-world impact and use, industry stuff, development and history, etc. The article needs to be basically restarted from scratch with sources first and only then content. With much much less product description. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The draft contains the following sentence: "We could also program human resource management software, medical practice management, law firm management software ." This is in the first person plural. Wikipedia is written in the formal third person. The use of the first person plural is typical of advertising. Pages containing first-person verbiage are usually tagged as G11. By the way, it doesn't read like French; it reads like marketing buzzspeak in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the article enormously and made a large number of corrections. If you want to reconsider your appreciation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesicantexas (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's mind blowing to me G11 got rejected on this. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is pure advertising through and through. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me :You say that the WinDev page is for advertising. It was made based (modestly) on the Microsoft Visual Studio page on Wikipedia. Is this page also advertising? I don't want to shock anyone, but if you think it's advertising, at least thank you for saying why, as someone above did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesicantexas (talk • contribs) 06:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I conscientiously deleted all the mentions that I could be criticized for. If you have reviews be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesicantexas (talk • contribs)
- The entire article reads like a product brochure. It would need to be trimmed to nothing, or as stated earlier WP:TNT applies. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there WP:THREE sources that would say this could be notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a mess, wouldn’t be surprised if some or all of the draft's content was copyrighted too. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.