Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EZSource

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. Secret ^account 19:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EZSource[edit]

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

Most of the article's sources are not reliable or independent of the subject; they are press releases from the company marketing this product, publicity material from its business partners, or blog posts. The remaining sources are proprietary white papers, though judging from the abstracts these focus on industry problems in general rather than EZSource in particular. (The full reports are behind a $1200 paywall.) I wasn't able to come up with any further reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom pretty much echoes the advice I gave the author on the article's talk page (q.v.). Sources given are mainly blogs and press-releases, some listings under Software a Company uses, with no real analysis or context, and white-papers that seem to describe industry problems in general, with either a passing mention of the company, or a quote from a company exec again with no context. The latest source added to the article refers to the company in passing as "another Cobol tools vendor". Pretty much sums up the depth of coverage found. Crow^Caw 21:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Crow. Neither these tools nor the parent company seems to have enough significant coverage to confer notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete I will state up front I work for EZSource. I do not see how this page differs from other company pages in the same category like Coverity, CAST, IBM Rational to name but a few.. These all have their own pages and an entry on the Static Code Analysis Tools page. Users searching Wikipedia should have complete information on ALL the tools available to them and the opportunity to decide for themselves whether it is interesting or not. I note that both Gartner and Forrester who are independent software market analysts have Wikipedia pages, the paywall mentioned above by Psychonaut is theirs, not ours. Computer Weekly is a reputable industry journal and the information is freely available. It would be helpful to have some constructive comments about the references we should include. BevB2014 ^EZSource 17.04, 13 October 2014 (CET)
- Hello BevB2014. Please note that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate software directory; this is an encyclopedia which covers only those subjects which have achieved in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject. Please see our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability and our guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources for a more detailed explanation of what sort of references are appropriate. The ones already present in the article are being challenged as failing one or more of the policy/guideline criteria. For example, some of them are not independent of the subject, others lack editorial oversight, and still others are nearly impossible for any editor here to obtain in order to verify. (Strictly speaking, sources which are expensive to obtain are not automatically discounted, though when challenged the onus is on the editor who adds them to show that they support the subject's notability and the factual claims made in the article.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Psychnaut. This I clearly understand, however, I would still like to understand the difference between our page and other, similar published pages by many other vendors, per my examples above. I am working on improving the external references and linkage to key topics of interest to people who typically look at this space. Therefore I request that the page stays up to allow me the opportunity to do that plus input from other sources. —BevB2014 (talk) 14.03, 14 October 2014 (CET) — Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you link to a specific article here, then maybe I or someone else can point out how the sources differ. Of course, it's possible that they don't differ qualitatively at all, in which case that other page should also be either improved or nominated for deletion – there are a lot of such pages which may have been simply overlooked. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the input, it's appreciated. I am committed to getting our page improved and independently verified per the feedback and will make those changes over the course of the next week.Happy then to have another discussion on the verifiable references and independence. —BevB2014 (talk) 12.03, 16 October 2014 (CET) — Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails the GNG, period. Especially if paid employees are working on the article - which is a serious breach of WP:COI - a month's long enough for that information to be added if it exists. Since it hasn't, I expect it doesn't. No prejudice to recreation should any reliable sources materialize, but we don't leave up promotional articles without sources. Nha Trang 20:25, 17 October 2014 (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.