Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrestaShop

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PrestaShop[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing and my PROD was removed with the basis of "clearly notable", searches and examinations have not found sufficient sources to actually suggest this can be better and convincingly improved, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fairly clearcut. 4th-most popular software as per Comparison of shopping cart software, meets "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." as per WP:NSOFTWARE as there are 12 books on the first page of https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Prestashop alone. Nominator clearly did not put any effort into the nomination and I am concerned that they are nominating numerous articles for deletion. Many lesser-visited articles can quickly be deleted by this kind of deletionist behaviour - 10 seconds of thoughtlessness and an entire article and its archives gone if no-one contests. I suggest the nominator reconsider what they are doing. Greenman (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX and WP:NPA There's no need to criticize anything here if the article itself is still not substantiated with actually convincing sources, the listed ones are not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't see this as a personal attack. I am simply pointing out that you have not been careful in this case, and expressed concern that this may be the case elsewhere. I see spurious deletion of people's voluntary efforts as the one of the most harmful activities for Wikipedia - it demotivates and chases away volunteers. I experience this all the time with African content, when well-meaning editors spend 5 seconds on their US default Google, for example, and nominate content for deletion. The volunteer editors return to find something obviously notable has been removed, and all their work thrown away. This is just a software article, but clearly you didn't search for publications before nominating it. I agree, that the article is not well-sourced, and it should be tagged for improvement. Greenman (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional sources and reviews: Simposia The eCommerce Magazine, Expansion, Abondance, Gazette Review, CMS Critic, Economy, Finances Online, Merchant Maverick, HTML Goodies, CPC Strategy-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some of the sources listed above (not all of them) look convincing.—J. M. (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2016 (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.