Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proworkflow

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) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proworkflow

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

Can not find significant third-party coverage of this product, and none are given. Haakon (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More of the "project management" morass; these are all programs that relate to the supervision of computer programmers, apparently. Google News finds only PR material and release announcements. No showing of technical or historical importance, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:N - non notable, no trusted 3rd party coverage, their only reference is a self reference from their own website. --DustyRain (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only deletion argument seems to be poorly conceived essay. LotLE×talk 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using WP:N. The essay is total shit. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and the proposed software notability guideline as well. Take your pick. JBsupreme (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to look at! Miami33139 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to satisfy any notability guidelines as there doesn't appear to be significant third party coverage by reliable sources. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:31, 13 January 2010 (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.