Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odoo (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete Entirely and hopelessly promotional, fails WP:SPIP, WP:PROMO. Most references are PRIMARY and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Even assuming the topic may be notable, it would require a rewrite. This is the third nomination but the article has not been improved. Most importantly, intellectual references from secondary sources and an encyclopedic and not promotionally toned article are required. Previous AfD Keep !votes commented on facts about number of installations, etc, but failed to produce references that meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix the issues by editing. It's obviously notable. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All very well, but it has been tagged since Feb 2017 and fails WP:PROMO. Even if a topic is notable, it doesn't get a pass on the other policies. If someone with some knowledge of the topic takes the editorial axe to the article and whips it into shape, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This version was neutral and reasonably well sourced. Someone coming along later and adding a load of promotional content is a reason for reverting, not deletion. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and clean up, it's not a company so WP:NCORP doesn't apply here. As a piece of software it just about passes WP:GNG. I agree that it is largely sourced to primary sources and such things as prices should definitely be removed. Sionk (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing here exceptional, just another piece of run-of-the-mill software. The sources are in their majority primary and self-published. If this is notable, the article is making a poor show of demonstrating this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is an obvious keep with revisions to me. My business uses the open-source Odoo 8.0 as our ERP software, and I just went to this page to find out what underlying languages were used to develop it. I found the answer (Python), so this article helped me and has utility. Odoo competes head-on with Microsoft Dynamics, etc., and there is nothing else like it that is open-source. I agree that the article reads like a sales pitch and needs to be revised. Sorry if my comment here isn't added and/or formatted and/or phrased correctly; I rarely comment on wikipedia. However, I do donate every month! MrKit2u (talk) 8:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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.