Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerto Projects

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. Consensus herein is that this software presently does not meet notability guidelines to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto Projects[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article about a product, created by an WP:SPA, with typical characteristics of a product promotion article (a lead followed by a list of features and "recognition"). Insufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is specialized software solution created for use in the United Kingdom as an asset management and ticketing system used by many local government agencies and educational institutions. As this is used by many government agencies in the UK and elsewhere It is important to keep material such as this so that the public can research and be informed on the software and services their money helps pay for. As such I respectfully disagree with Rhododendrites and feel that upon rereading WP:GNG that this article meets the 5 requirements. Andrdema (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No search returns on Highbeam, Questia, Google Books or The Guardian where I might have expected to find something on UK public sector software. (Note there are some false positives for an EU funding programme of the same name.) I recognise User:Andrdema's argument above, and have considered the same in the past for pages on EU funding projects (coincidentally). However I don't think a potential for spend-checking function is sufficient; this article really needs more than the given references and currently fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now likely and restart if and when better as I found nothing to suggest better sourcing and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches turned up nothing which would have this meet the notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 5 October 2015 (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.