Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenConf

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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenConf

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

Company and software product that does not seem to be notable - no evidence that it's any different from the competition. This article is basically an advert. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The promotional tone needs to be cut back a bit but the subject seems notable and covered in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article updated to reflect info from additional sourced materials. Entry more comprehensive than others in same industry (e.g., easychair) and comparable to other widely used software (e.g., slack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.230.160 (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the current sourcing seems notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks to me like nobody has checked the references!

#1 merely states that the company exists;

#2 explains its functionality and compares it with some other products, but makes no comment that could be taken as implying notability;

#3 mentions it in passing and doesn't provide any kind of analysis or endorsement;

#5 is another technical analysis of its usability - nothing at all to do with notability.

The only sources that could be taken to imply notability are #4, where the IEEE recommends it and #6, which is a blog page in a business software directory and review site. No reliable source is saying it's the leading product, an award winning product, or anything else notable. Statements about how widely used it is are unsupported.

So as I said - in what way does it stand out from the opposition such that it merits its own encyclopedia page? Andyjsmith (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: reference added to newspaper article referencing the software as the "leading web-based peer-review management system". Extensive listing of uses may be found at OpenConf.com/portfolio/ 104.228.230.160 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2016 (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.