The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Bordeline spam article (placed by WP:SPA) about a company which appears to fail WP:CORP as there appears to be no independent 3rd party coverage of note. Creator has twice removed notability and unreferenced tags without adressing the issues so it looks unlikely they ever will. Phrases such as "Softlink celebrates 25 years of innovation and 10,000 customers in 108 nations" suggest spam. There is a claim of notability in "Softlink Australia wins the Australian Export Award 1999", but this does not in itself appear to meet WP:CORP and there is no sign this resulted in any significant coverage. Note: article was created as Softlink International so most of the history is there. Softlink was previously a redir to Symbolic link, which was replaced using a C&P move. If the article is deleted, this will need to be reverted. I42 ( talk) 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The Intention was certainly not for this to be spam - Softlink's products are used in many parts of the world and I was hoping this could be a platform for users the world over to contribute and build on user derived information and to build a resource which would be useful to the many thousands of users of the system. Libraries and librarians are unfortunately often not given huge funding so any additional resources which may assist them to gather information (about products, features, software intricacies and more) is of great value to librarians. I am happy to change and modify the base entry to meet with requirements, but the intention was for this to be a base entry to be accessed and built on by users of the software, and I felt that was in line with what Wikipedia is all about. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Sjritchie ( talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the advice - this certainly wasn't intended to be a spam entry - and I mentioned this earlier. The entry is valid and would prove to be a valuable resource as it grows for users of the software. I am slowly building the entry to ensure it meets all criteria, and I hope it will be accepted. I am open to suggestions to where I can improve the entry. As this is my first entry for Wikipedia, it is a steep learning curve to ensure I have provided all relevant data. As for comments suggesting it shouldn't be an entry - I'm confused as there are already comparative entries for Library Management Systems out there and don't see this as being any different? ( i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen) though I do admit the entry itself needs work. Sjritchie ( talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I have made numerous modifications to the entry and feel it it is improving in its relevance. I appreciate everyone's feedback (positive & negative) as that is the only way this article will improve - through directed criticism to enable me to target sections to improve. As for deletion - that would result in some systems having a Wikipedia Entry (i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen + others) while others do not - all are comparative systems. This would not be fair to the end user who is seeking knowledge on the topic. I'm sure the entry can be improved to a point where it is able to be accepted as an entry. Sjritchie ( talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Bordeline spam article (placed by WP:SPA) about a company which appears to fail WP:CORP as there appears to be no independent 3rd party coverage of note. Creator has twice removed notability and unreferenced tags without adressing the issues so it looks unlikely they ever will. Phrases such as "Softlink celebrates 25 years of innovation and 10,000 customers in 108 nations" suggest spam. There is a claim of notability in "Softlink Australia wins the Australian Export Award 1999", but this does not in itself appear to meet WP:CORP and there is no sign this resulted in any significant coverage. Note: article was created as Softlink International so most of the history is there. Softlink was previously a redir to Symbolic link, which was replaced using a C&P move. If the article is deleted, this will need to be reverted. I42 ( talk) 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The Intention was certainly not for this to be spam - Softlink's products are used in many parts of the world and I was hoping this could be a platform for users the world over to contribute and build on user derived information and to build a resource which would be useful to the many thousands of users of the system. Libraries and librarians are unfortunately often not given huge funding so any additional resources which may assist them to gather information (about products, features, software intricacies and more) is of great value to librarians. I am happy to change and modify the base entry to meet with requirements, but the intention was for this to be a base entry to be accessed and built on by users of the software, and I felt that was in line with what Wikipedia is all about. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Sjritchie ( talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the advice - this certainly wasn't intended to be a spam entry - and I mentioned this earlier. The entry is valid and would prove to be a valuable resource as it grows for users of the software. I am slowly building the entry to ensure it meets all criteria, and I hope it will be accepted. I am open to suggestions to where I can improve the entry. As this is my first entry for Wikipedia, it is a steep learning curve to ensure I have provided all relevant data. As for comments suggesting it shouldn't be an entry - I'm confused as there are already comparative entries for Library Management Systems out there and don't see this as being any different? ( i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen) though I do admit the entry itself needs work. Sjritchie ( talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I have made numerous modifications to the entry and feel it it is improving in its relevance. I appreciate everyone's feedback (positive & negative) as that is the only way this article will improve - through directed criticism to enable me to target sections to improve. As for deletion - that would result in some systems having a Wikipedia Entry (i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen + others) while others do not - all are comparative systems. This would not be fair to the end user who is seeking knowledge on the topic. I'm sure the entry can be improved to a point where it is able to be accepted as an entry. Sjritchie ( talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply