Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpleRisk

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleRisk[edit]

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

Per source searches, this open-source risk management system does not meet WP:GNG at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely primary-sourced, the page features promotional rather than encyclopaedic wording ("sports a dashboard for submitting a new risk for consideration by your team", etc.). That aspect could be fixed by normal editing, but I am seeing nothing to demonstrate notability, whether by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

→I beg to differ. If you have a problem with the phraseology, please edit. But I doubt if you know the subject matter well enough so as to say this is a promotional thing. I am not in any way connected with SimpleRisk. Please try finding standards-based open source risk management platforms, see where that will lead you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psy~enwiki (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm seeing a few hits for minor sources, but the coverage isn't broad or in depth enough to suggest this passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Part of the reason there's not much material on this subject is that, to begin with, not much material out is there on open source risk management platform. This is a highly specialized topic. See, for instance, [Risk management tools]. If you delete, then how else do you build knowledge on the subject? Do you wait for everything to be available elsewhere before you write about the topic? Peter

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.