Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softlink

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. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Softlink

Softlink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics

)

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

Bordeline spam article (placed by

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Intention was certainly not for this to be spam - Softlink's products are used in many parts of the world and I was hoping this could be a platform for users the world over to contribute and build on user derived information and to build a resource which would be useful to the many thousands of users of the system. Libraries and librarians are unfortunately often not given huge funding so any additional resources which may assist them to gather information (about products, features, software intricacies and more) is of great value to librarians. I am happy to change and modify the base entry to meet with requirements, but the intention was for this to be a base entry to be accessed and built on by users of the software, and I felt that was in line with what Wikipedia is all about. Please correct me if I am mistaken.Sjritchie (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much not what Wikipedia is about. An article about a company might focus on its history and the impact it and its products have had, but what you are suggesing here is unencyclopedic for two main reasons: (1)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - it merely collates and presents existing information, "user derived information" should not be first published here. Having said all that, neither of these issues apply to the article yet, but since the article was nominated for deletion you have made the spam issue far worse: "Liberty has proven ability to support the success of organisations and their users across a range of industries, making it a secure and low-risk solution for your library" is pure advertising copy. I42 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  userfy User:Sjritchie's version on request. This article would be difficult or impossible to make into a non-spam page because of the lack of independent sources, but the subject appears to be real, and could become notable in the future. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete and redirect to
  unambiguous advertising: a web-based library and information management solution used at thousands of schools... delivers secure, online access to all information and learning resources.... robust technology and easy-to-use features.... used by individuals and organisations worldwide to achieve objectives and discover information.... A scalable, high-performance solution... has proven ability to support the success of organisations and their users across a range of industries, making it a secure and low-risk solution for your library. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• probable keep This is not a part of the library field I specialize in, and the main area of use is not in the US; therefore I have no previous familiarity with it. I need to check further for reviews. Certainly not a speedy, because promotional aspects could be removed by editing. A description of a product is not necessarily promotional. A statement of the number of users can be promotional, but can also be the sort of think that establishes notability-- for a product, market share is relevant--and 10,000 users, if verified is a very significant share of the market. There is at least one acceptable source: the inclusion in the LJ "Investing in The Future: Automation Marketplace 2009" shows a sufficiently important product to be included there. the assertion that it is particularly suited to handling complex serials is quite interesting, because from the perspective of a research library, this is one of the major gaps in most existing library systems. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC) ,[reply]
  • The complex serial numbers feature might be worth a mention in an encyclopedic article, but who makes that statement? As far as I can tell, the claims on Library Journal come from the product sellers—language elsewhere on that page describes a company in first person plural—and are not evaluations by LJ. And the idea that this feature is unusual and therefore notable might be
    secondary sources, we're just taking the company's word on everything, which would open Wikipedia to much abuse.
    At best, this subject might merit a mention on List of integrated library systems, or the examplefarm on Integrated library system. Anything more is WP:ADVERT. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • To research the library angle, I'd recommend their profile at Library Technology Guides Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - this certainly wasn't intended to be a spam entry - and I mentioned this earlier. The entry is valid and would prove to be a valuable resource as it grows for users of the software. I am slowly building the entry to ensure it meets all criteria, and I hope it will be accepted. I am open to suggestions to where I can improve the entry. As this is my first entry for Wikipedia, it is a steep learning curve to ensure I have provided all relevant data. As for comments suggesting it shouldn't be an entry - I'm confused as there are already comparative entries for Library Management Systems out there and don't see this as being any different? ( i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen) though I do admit the entry itself needs work. Sjritchie (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I take note that the creator of the article has offered to improve it to meet our standards. The section listing all the countries where it has been installed is especially unencylopedic, and would need to be removed as part of article improvement. A list of the announced features is not very helpful; people can go to the product's web site for that. Even an article that was entirely written from third-party reviews would have more claim on our attention than this one. If I had time to work on it I would try to read all the references and dig up usable information. Until it looks like a real Wikipedia article, I think we should wait. When the current state of an article is so far off the norm, assessing notability is hard to do, even though some of the problems could be fixed by rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made numerous modifications to the entry and feel it it is improving in its relevance. I appreciate everyone's feedback (positive & negative) as that is the only way this article will improve - through directed criticism to enable me to target sections to improve. As for deletion - that would result in some systems having a Wikipedia Entry (i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen + others) while others do not - all are comparative systems. This would not be fair to the end user who is seeking knowledge on the topic. I'm sure the entry can be improved to a point where it is able to be accepted as an entry.Sjritchie (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whether this is kept or deleted, it ought to be moved to Softlink (software) so that the redirect in softlink can be restored. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ping 10:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]