There were some poor attempts to create the article by marketing guys with no respect to rules. It was reasonable to delete
this spam. However I suppose that X-Cart has sufficient grounds to be restored. I prepared a little
draft. There are only facts and no marketing bullshit. NB: I must declare my conflict of interests because my friends from X-Cart asked me (as a skilled editor) to help them
Gruznov (
talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation. The old AfD was so long ago, and the proposed new content so different (and well-sourced), that I believe there is little benefit in restoring the old article but see no reason why it can't be recreated from scratch with the new content. FF2010 10:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment this proposed draft has a lot of problems; promotional language, advertising jargon, and most (if not all) of the sources are press releases or self-run websites (
SitePoint possibly be an exception, but I'm not convinced). Overall, the draft reads as spammier than the article that was deleted, and the sourcing is no better (and perhaps worse). I can't see that draft surviving an AfD.
WilyD 15:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I re-read the draft and can not find any example of a advertising jargon or promotional language. If you may show me problem fragment I'd be very thankful. And it would be great to see a deleted variant. --
Gruznov (
talk) 18:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Use of "solution" in the salesperson jargon sense, for instance.
WilyD 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)reply
allow re-creation. the review in Merchants Maverick seems to be a truly independent review that goes beyond the press releases. I think it merits at the least another discussion. AfD, not here, is the place to decide if the sources are sufficient for notability. I don't see the version as promotional, linking to a press release is not by itself promotional if there are also good references and the article is basically descriptive. DGG (
talk ) 19:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The Merchants Maverick is certainly in-depth, and possibly independent. It's a little slick-looking, but it's a guy writing for his own website with no evidence of editorial oversight or reputation or whatnot; from an WP:N standpoint or whatnot, I read it as basically a blog.
WilyD 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation but I can see the current draft having problems at AFD so, really, what's the point? It's "promotional" because the major claims are not sourced to independent secondary sources but press releases and interviews with the CEO. The "boring" claims (fraud prevention, number of plans) are the only ones sourced to independent reviews. With 2 (maybe 3) independent,
reliable sources,
WP:CORPDEPTH might be a struggle. My advice? Spend some more time collecting decent sources, ditch some of the press releases and you'll be in a much better place. St★lwart111 12:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
There were some poor attempts to create the article by marketing guys with no respect to rules. It was reasonable to delete
this spam. However I suppose that X-Cart has sufficient grounds to be restored. I prepared a little
draft. There are only facts and no marketing bullshit. NB: I must declare my conflict of interests because my friends from X-Cart asked me (as a skilled editor) to help them
Gruznov (
talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation. The old AfD was so long ago, and the proposed new content so different (and well-sourced), that I believe there is little benefit in restoring the old article but see no reason why it can't be recreated from scratch with the new content. FF2010 10:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment this proposed draft has a lot of problems; promotional language, advertising jargon, and most (if not all) of the sources are press releases or self-run websites (
SitePoint possibly be an exception, but I'm not convinced). Overall, the draft reads as spammier than the article that was deleted, and the sourcing is no better (and perhaps worse). I can't see that draft surviving an AfD.
WilyD 15:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I re-read the draft and can not find any example of a advertising jargon or promotional language. If you may show me problem fragment I'd be very thankful. And it would be great to see a deleted variant. --
Gruznov (
talk) 18:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Use of "solution" in the salesperson jargon sense, for instance.
WilyD 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)reply
allow re-creation. the review in Merchants Maverick seems to be a truly independent review that goes beyond the press releases. I think it merits at the least another discussion. AfD, not here, is the place to decide if the sources are sufficient for notability. I don't see the version as promotional, linking to a press release is not by itself promotional if there are also good references and the article is basically descriptive. DGG (
talk ) 19:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The Merchants Maverick is certainly in-depth, and possibly independent. It's a little slick-looking, but it's a guy writing for his own website with no evidence of editorial oversight or reputation or whatnot; from an WP:N standpoint or whatnot, I read it as basically a blog.
WilyD 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation but I can see the current draft having problems at AFD so, really, what's the point? It's "promotional" because the major claims are not sourced to independent secondary sources but press releases and interviews with the CEO. The "boring" claims (fraud prevention, number of plans) are the only ones sourced to independent reviews. With 2 (maybe 3) independent,
reliable sources,
WP:CORPDEPTH might be a struggle. My advice? Spend some more time collecting decent sources, ditch some of the press releases and you'll be in a much better place. St★lwart111 12:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.