Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crownpeak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Largely for the reasons listed by Whpq. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crownpeak[edit]
- Crownpeak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable, spammy, was CSD'd a few days ago but restored and recreated with less spam, however still many claims made without suitable references, is never going to develop into a useful article which furthers the knowledge in wikipedia, will only serve to advertise the company. I expect it'll be a keep because of some obscure news which, if anyone can be bothered to spend their time on, will turn out to support some but not all of the claims on the page. I appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE, but with a great deal of hope.-- Chzz ► 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I added the ad tag, but a few days later there has been no improvement. Still no evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too much focus on company awards and leaders. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crowpeak is a company which provides hosted cms solutions, they function along the same lines of Joomla which is opensource and Clickability which is in the same league. My first posting for the same was deleted as it was considered too much of an ad, so I rewrote it. I have currently removed the list of awards for which I do not have a reference from a notable site. I can build it along the lines of Joomla, where the focus is on community. Would that help. Any other suggestions. Belmond (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Belmond[reply]
- Keep I can see no reason why this can't be improved rather than deleted. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with User:Jenuk1985 that it would be possible to replace the existing content with a NPOV, well-sourced article with this title.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might be possible, but will it happen? If removed, what info is lost? Chzz ► 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CORP recommends significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The current article gives no hint that is achievable. The reference for the customer list appears to be the company web page, and the Gartner "positive" award includes the appraisal "CrownPeak struggles to win enterprise business from traditional competitors". Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - rather than appealing to common sense, appealing to the notability guidelines makes more sense. I would discount the Gartner report. I've had access to Gartner, and Gartner analysts, and even work with a consultant who has written Gartner analysis. For the purposes of notability, it is key to understand that Gartner will research and publish information on any company if a client makes a query about it. As such, there is no editorial oversight into the selection of companies by Gartner in these circumstances. I would however trust them for facts about company that could establish notability such as a company being the market leader by sales volume for example. Setting Gartner aside, there is this, and this. The Age, a major Australian daily sees fit to mention them, but more importantly point to more in-depth coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your links confirm only that Crownpeak supply certain software, and that the software news media has reviewed it (in the same way they spend half an hour looking over every commercial software package). None of the links say the company or its product is in any way unusual. The Age article mentions Crownpeak and some other products, only to dismiss them and recommend another. The notability link confirms my above comment that notable means "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I think the most appropriate policy/guideline is WP:CORP and it does not recommend adding every company that has ever released a software package. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - A company and it's flagship product's notability are inextricably related so articles about both are relevant of the purposes of discussion. Specialised software is not going to attract a lot of mainstream press. IT magazines are the appropriate ares for finding sources, and these sources are independent of the company. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I won't be very unhappy if people want to keep this article, but the logical conclusion from your reply is that any company releasing software sold for more than, say, $100 is "notable" (because there will be "reviews" of all such software – that's how the IT magazines make articles and sell ad space). I haven't seen a source (let alone a secondary source suggested by WP:CORP) saying there is anything unusual about this company or its software (it's not notable). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Firstly, there have been plenty of software articles that have been deleted due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, so your fear that every piece of software released will be given an article is unfounded. Secondly, our general notability guidelines uses coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. IT magazines do not review every piece of software available. There is an editorial process in determination of topics and the creation of their articles. Other notability guidelines such as WP:CORP are supplemental to the primary notability criteria and do not replace them. -- Whpq (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe the page gives a snapshot of the company from several third party resources. But yes it does have room for more improvement in the content.
Sally (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)sally — Sally12d (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
- Comment - Hm. Do you think this is a WP:SPA? Or shall we WP:AGF for now? No offense to sally, its great if she is interested in participating in the AFD section but with a total of two edits, one wouldn't expect an edit to AFD to be one of the two. FingersOnRoids 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - added spa tag just in case. Just a thing for the closing admin to consider. FingersOnRoids 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Did anyone actually read the references? None of them are sufficient to establish notability. The first is a directory listing; the second is a promotional notice at salesforce.com; the third a press release; and the fourth a Gartner rating. None of those amount to the significant coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (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.