Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-Files

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. Kurykh (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M-Files

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

Article about recently released software. Almost all available sources are press release based. Fails WP:PRODUCT. - Mr X 13:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the name makes it a challenge to search for (Matlab m-files dominate some searches), I was unable to find in-depth reviews of this software. The topic then fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE notability thresholds. I don't see any good merge targets, either. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. M-files meets the first of the Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE inclusion criteria.: "A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria: It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.(...)". M-files is for example included in Gartner's 2016 "Magic quadrant for enterprise content management" report https://www.gartner.com/doc/3496817/magic-quadrant-enterprise-content-management --Brutulf (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Nearly all the refs provided are from the company or clear PR sites. The two exceptions a Finnish language blog and a Finnish language IT magazine, both deadlinks. Blogs are not WP:RS. The IT magazine coverage cannot be assumed to be significant unless someone can provide a link or confirm they have read it. The Gartner 'magic quadrant' mentioned above has the same problem - it could be an incidental mention unless someone has $1000+ to pay to read the report to prove otherwise. With no clearcut, RS, significant coverage, there is no basis for keeping this. Also, Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the inclusion criteria. The software was for instance selected as the Software Product of the Year 2015 by the Finnish Information Processing Association [1] (in Finnish) and is featured in reviews and news, for instance [2] [3] [4]. The Gartner report can be downloaded from the M-Files website for free although you need to give your contact information to do so [5]. --Jopo (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:B2B. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 26 February 2017 (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.