- 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. Michig ( talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Earliz
- Earliz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Software product without significant secondary coverage. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Can't seem to find any evidence of any notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This software is mostly used in Europa. His ranking on Alexa shows it has a fair ranking in France and Spain: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/earliz.com. There was recent press coverage in US and France:
- - Olivierhory ( talk) 14:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Alexa stats don't contribute to notability, and your links lack depth of coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: I couldn't find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - If you need much independant sources, I can suggest the following ones that are not linked to a press release:
- -
Olivierhory (
talk) 15:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- These lack depth as well. Two of them barely provide trivial mention, one is about company (which is not the subject of the article), and the last one briefly reiterates author's description without providing any details that would allow to conclude that the articles were written by people who actually saw the software itself. We did not get closer to passing WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 22:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 07:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. St★lwart 111 11:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not coming up with sufficient evidence to show this product meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gongshow talk 16:43, 15 August 2014 (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.
- 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. Michig ( talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Earliz
- Earliz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Software product without significant secondary coverage. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Can't seem to find any evidence of any notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This software is mostly used in Europa. His ranking on Alexa shows it has a fair ranking in France and Spain: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/earliz.com. There was recent press coverage in US and France:
- - Olivierhory ( talk) 14:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Alexa stats don't contribute to notability, and your links lack depth of coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: I couldn't find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - If you need much independant sources, I can suggest the following ones that are not linked to a press release:
- -
Olivierhory (
talk) 15:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- These lack depth as well. Two of them barely provide trivial mention, one is about company (which is not the subject of the article), and the last one briefly reiterates author's description without providing any details that would allow to conclude that the articles were written by people who actually saw the software itself. We did not get closer to passing WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 22:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 07:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. St★lwart 111 11:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not coming up with sufficient evidence to show this product meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gongshow talk 16:43, 15 August 2014 (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.