Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedDot (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 merge to OpenText. Clear consensus here for a selective merge. I leave it up to whoever does the merge to figure out exactly what selective means. Leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedDot[edit]

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

I actually consider this PROD material but because of the 1st 2005 AfD, here we are; none of this actually suggests substance and my own searches are not finding convincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenText, with a possible merge. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to OpenText, which presently has no mention at all of this business unit of OpenText. This will improve the encyclopedia by improving the quality of the merge target article; a functional and appropriate WP:ATD in this instance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article has it's own importance to keep, in additional it has acceptable third party sources. No mention about this info in main article of OpenText. For example we have separate pages for Google, Youtube of the same companyJessie1979 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as it stands. Jessie1979, I'm open to having my mind changed by some convincing sourcing in the article - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I hope these independent sources provided at article are sufficient [1] Jessie1979 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Comment the link above is to non RS ning.com, which states:

"Did anyone take the plunge to RedDot version 9 yet? We did, and it seems to be running fine. It seems like a rebranded version of 7.5. It comes with a new text editor (Telerik RadEditor) which seems a lot nicer, but I've notice on some of my pages after being published they show with the funny little question mark icon for an invalid character. The character usually occurs with a space. Not sure what the deal is with that, so I've just switched back to the regular RedDot editor for now."

And that's it. That's clearly insufficient to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and Redirect to OpenText per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenText This is clearly not notable on its own. We don't create pages on every sub-entity of a company. A redirect will suffice here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with OpenText - there's a wealth of information online about this topic, but as other editors mentioned, there's no reason to have its own article. Most of the reliable sources I found were confined to a 2-year period (2008-2009). A redirect seems fine, as long as all the info in this article makes it to the OpenText article. ArchieOof (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to OpenText - per above. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 6 September 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.