Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyChair (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EasyChair

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

Second nomination. This page is an advertisement for a software product used in technical conferences. Several years after the original AfD there are still no reliable sources to support the claim that it is "used extensively", and no other indications of notability. There are plenty of similar products out there. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence would be easy to provide by partly reverting an earlier edit. Before this edit, there was a list of notable conference using EasyChair, as to provide evidence for the extensive use. A lot of computer science conferences now have Wikipedia articles, so it would be easy to check the homepages of some (or all) of them to see whether they use EasyChair as their submission system. However please note that I'm not going to do so now, as I'm not sure it would be the kind of evidence that you, @Andyjsmith are expecting. --Langec (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting anything other than a reasonable discussion. Are you saying that you know of reliable sources that prove notability but you're going to keep them to yourself? the fact that a few notable conferences used this software does not bestow notability on the software any more than it bestows notability on the brand of toilet paper they used. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. The article is missing sources only because the nominator has removed them from the article, they should be reinstated. —Ruud 10:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then please reinstate them, or at least give an example of what you mean. I've looked back at earlier versions and I can't find anything that indicates notability, just a few examples of use - which you could find for pretty much any product you care to mention. Andyjsmith (talk)

Keep. It's extremely widely used in computer science - it's essentially used by all conferences and workshops in my field. I was able to find and add two Springer-published academic sources that discuss or mention it with little effort. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or mention elsewhere at best as there seems to be acceptable sourcing and if further is available....but if not, mention elsewhere. Notifying the only still active AfDer DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 21 January 2016 (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.