Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demandware

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 per improvements. GlassCobra 16:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demandware

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy candidate, no showing of importance, and written in spamstyle: . . . they have established themselves as a customizable, user-friendly eCommerce merchant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states "A company...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The article has several secondary sources - newspapers, business journals, etc. This appears to meet the criteria for inclusion in my understanding. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Woo1000, I see that you started editing today, and all you have done is nominate articles for deletion. So far, each article I have reviewed does appears to meet the criteria for inclusion. What is the purpose of all of these AfDs? Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is spam referenced to primary source and or press releases, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I checked the references, 3 were press releases and 4 were coverage by secondary parties. How exactly is this not meeting the criteria? Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 7 are primary source, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the press releases. That's how it doesn't meet the criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. I interpreted the articles as a newspiece about the press release, not the press release itself. However, how about adding sources like [1], [2]. Still looking. I believe the article can definitely be expanded even more. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grant you that the technewsworld thing looks okay but, the other doesn't cover the subject in a non-trivial manner and is another press release (just for a different company). Generally, anything that has the sort of ending that the findarticles thing has is a press release and not an actualy journalistic article (as they generally include the relevant information in the article and not as an addendum at the bottom.) Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what is annoying? This LINK here. Subscribers only. Bleh! Well, I find it interesting that a detailed evaluation report was performed by a third party - at least the link shows that. I would love to see the information from that report added to the article (be it good or bad). Still looking. Lots of links out there but as you pointed out, majority are press release. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unindented here. [3] shows them as a finalist in 2008 SIIA Codie Awards. By itself, I don't think it would be worthy,but combined with everything else - I think it might just make the cut (after discounting the press releases per your suggestion). I am trying to find at least one more. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - added two more reliable sources, including a lengthy profile at CNET News. Article should cut the mustard now. Gr1st (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (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.