Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional open source (2nd nomination)

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) 21:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional open source

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

this article is clearly advertising on the article i have read the entire article and to comply with all of the demands i would have to remove entire sections of the article as it has clear bias from my point of view even though wikipedia entirely relies on FLOSS thus meeting FSF criteria this article Violates NPOV and is advocacy of open source which proselytizing, evangelism, ministry etc is prohibited in another words wikipedia is not an advocacy website, wikipedia is also not a place to promote the various companies that are in this article, another objection to this article is original research which according to wikipedia policy does not belong on wikipedia and also this article is unnecessary considering we have the Business models for open-source software which has none of the problems i have listed for Professional open source Jonnymoon96 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not as bad as some, but it looks like the material comes almost all from a single-purpose account ArunPatel95 as a school project in two weeks of October 2014. I hope Wikipedia has learned that school projects that focus on creating new articles are counter-productive. They almost always produce one-sided articles filled with direct promotional quotes that are at best a snapshot in time. Then veteran editors spend their time finding those articles and deleting them. /rant W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 17 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.