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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpiraTeam[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Nicacedric (WP:SPA, creator) with the following rationale "Thank you for your feedback or concern regarding notability. I respectfully but strongly disagree - please look at the 8th reference to see one of the strongest links proving that the information is verifiable and written by a third-party leader". I am not impressed by reference 8, a website with a title like http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com seems almost to be saying 'we review whatever you pay us for'. TechTarget "sells marketing programs and data analytics services for targeted sales and marketing efforts". Marketing, aka spam, is what this entry is. Per WP:CORPSPAM, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a product brochure, with no indications of notability or significance. Simply put, it's spam, & such content belongs on company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just used the Google search above to see if I could find independent sources. I found the following: https://www.pcmag.com/business/directory/online-collaboration/709-inflectra-spirateam https://reviews.financesonline.com/p/spirateam/ https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=EvilDauphin.SpiraTeamExplorer https://www.business-software.com/product/inflectra-spirateam/ http://comparecamp.com/spirateam-review-features-pricing-overview-project-management-software/ http://www.softwaretestingmagazine.com/news/spirateam-5-2-enhances-test-management-functionality/ http://www.scrumexpert.com/news/spirateam-5-2-enables-effective-program-management/ but every one of them suffers the same problem: no byline. In other words, they appear to be paid placements. Conclusion, the product fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created and edited predominantly by two accounts whose edits relate to the Inflectra company and its product here. (One account acknowledges on their User Talk page to working for the company.) As others have noted, the current article is effectively a product feature list more appropriate to the company website, but that could be fixed by normal editing. The product listings and reviews presented are enough for basic verification. There is also its appearance in Gartner Magic Quadrants, but I think we have seen in previous AfDs that this is insufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability in itself. Overall, while the reviews could go some way towards the inclusion criteria at WP:NSOFT I don't think there is enough to demonstrate particular notability for this product. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2017 (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.