Talk:EthosCE

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

ezrawolfe (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Employee and part owner of DLC Solutions, the producer of EthosCE.)

Request for review of speedy deletion

Hello, Boing! I wonder if you would do me a favour. I speedily deleted EthosCE as promotional. The author has challenged the deletion, and you can see discussion of it at User talk:Zendoodles. I still think that the article was promotional enough to justify speedy deletion, but it was not outright blatant spam, so I wonder if you would be willing to give a second opinion? If you disagree with me then please restore the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really looks like it's written in a "marketing department" kind of way to me (and perhaps a bit "technical manual") - it's extolling the product's features and technical details rather than being written in a disinterested third-party kind of way. (I'm also not sure it meets the notability requirements, but it perhaps does enough to avoid A7). I'd be tempted to userfy it to give the author the opportunity to improve it.

For example, "EthosCE is a learning management system designed by healthcare clinicians and developers for the administration of continuing medical education activities" really doesn't tell me what it is. The first sentence should be more like "EthosCE is a computer software package produced by DLC Solutions, and is used for producing medical educational websites" (or whatever it actually does - "the administration of continuing medical education activities" is marketing speak and really doesn't tell me anything).

I'd also get rid of the version-by-version development history, as that's really not appropriate for an encyclopedia. And maybe leave out technical details (eg what interfaces it provides - encyclopedia readers aren't interested in that), and perhaps say more about who uses it instead? There's a list of examples, and that's something that might make reasonable non-promotional narrative.

But yes, I wouldn't go for straight undeletion into article space - I would suggest userfy. (PS: I'm off to the Liverpool Wiki meet now - I may be gone some time). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]