Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SER Group

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 delete. Although analyst coverage is a positive sign for notability, the clear consensus from this discussion is that the article as written relies too much on non-independent sources and is written in a promotional tone. No prejudice against creating a new article that focuses on how the company is presented in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

SER Group

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

SER Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This was deleted via speedy today and was recreated today itself. The draft looks pretty much same with a bit of trimming. Still fails WP:NCORP Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Note the discussion between the article creator and the nominator which has been placed on the Talk page rather than here. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Summary of the discussion between the article creator and the nominator Akoszlajda (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the nomination the article has been revised by the article creator and couple other persons from the community. Summing up taken actions:

1. Additional references has been added to the article

2. References to "SER Group" home page has been significantly limited from 13 out of 33 to 3 out of 36

3. Ambiguous references to Wiki articles has been removed and this badge is already removed

4. "Article as oprhant" issue has been managed as there are 2-3 articles referencing to this article however the badge was not removed by the nominator due to unknown reasons

5. All mentioned so far issues related to "deletion consideration" has been managed. For example, last suggestion was to provide 3 best Reliable WP:RS and Notable WP:SIGCOV sources of information about the article topic following article WP:THREE.

Answering it the following sources has been provided:

a) Gartner publishes the information about SER Group and its product Doxis4 since 2015 and the last one is from 2020: (the solution was first in Enterprise Content Management - ECM category and then in Content Services Platforms category)

* in November 2020 SER Group has been defined as a Visionary in The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Content Services Platforms 2020

b) Forrester publishes the information about SER Group and its product Doxis4 since 2017 and the last one is from 2021:

* in June 2021 SER Group has been recognized as “Strong Performer” in Forrester Wave™: Content Platforms report

c) Information about SER from Dun & Bradstreet

* About SER Group

Gartner & Forrester are well known, independent IT research companies, which reports are widely used and they are treated as reliable source of information for strategic decisions in big enterprises. Dun & Bradstreet is a very noble organization outside IT world providing commercial data, analytics, and insights for businesses since 1841. All the information below were and are in SER Group article - I have just provided today additional references to Gartner).

Information about similar companies/products like Alfresco Software or Pegasystems are in Wikipedia since long time ago and the article provides only the basic information about similar company. I willing to share my knowledge about this specific, technical "sub-culture".

Basing on this summary I would like to ask kindly about removing "deletion consideration" and "Article as oprhant" badges OR detail, merytoric information what should be changed or updated, so the knowledge may be properly shared.

References

• Comment Sorry I have been away. Creator has made their points already. Let's wait for others to comment. This is a discussion and would require others to participate. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment2 Hi Nomadicghumakkad. I took last action on the article a week ago and since then nothing has changed. Now You request others to participate. Did "others" add the "for deletion" badge? If there is any other "group" of people who should "accept"/"approve" the article let me/us know it please - I guess the process should be transparent, so its participants should be known as well, correct? So far, I was thinking that creator of the badge takes responsibility for his own action. Let me know please if there is anything more to do/correct/add/change/delete (I am opened for merytorical discussion) OR remove the badge please. Thank You in advance for Your support to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Akoszlajda (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Let me start by telling you that I don't appreciate your tone and I basically owe you nothing. I do Wiki voluntarily and can respond or not respond based on my discretion. If you don't receive timely or appropriate response from me, feel free to reach out to others or ask at WP:TEA. I own nothing here. No one does. This is an open collaborative platform. So stop building a pressure on me to respond and pin it on me! I very rarely lose my cool but you are pushing me on the verge. Your desperation clearly reeks of WP:COI so I would recommend to the closing admin that this is draftified and vetted through AFC process before putting it in the main space. Now, coming to the sources,

[1] mentions the subject once. Do you have access to the full report where we can read what's written about the company? I might have assumed good faith and moved on believing that in-depth discussion is present indeed in this report. But I don't think you deserve good faith here. So please provide the entire report so that we can read what exactly is written in the report and we can determine if this would qualify as a source.

[2] - not a reliable source. Complete Promo.

[3] - User generated reviews. Not reliable.

[4] - This is taken from your own website. Please provide original report.

[5] - Company profiling. Neither independent nor reliable.

through out the course of this discussion, even if it is proven that the company is notable; I would prefer this to be drafitfied since it can't be present in mainspace in current state and go through a proper AFC process. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - corporate spam held up by WP:REFBOMBing - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Per G11, blatant promotional article. Celestina007 (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt Awful IT product promotion, made worse by awful English. The latter can be cleaned up, the former should have been sorry, WAS! G11ed... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Commment 12VII Akoszlajda (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Lads and Gents,

I am pretty sure You know each other (or at least some of You know some others), but I must admit I do not know any of You. This is why I want You to make the table clean and start the topic from the scratch...

I want You to know that I am adding information about the company voluntarily as well and I am not paid for it despite I cooperate with the company (I do not hide it). If somebody doubts my intentions, I am opened to discuss it and to explain the technical nature of my work as I am just IT delivery guy. It seems to me like You are fed up with revising too many marketing articles, but please do not make shortcuts in here and do not treat me as the marketer, because I am not the one!

All the information in the article comes from publicly available sources and it can be verified - please point me out which speciif statement is "too promotional" or incorrect, because I did my best to present just pure facts showing the resources each time. If you complain about the words like "Vistionary" or "Challenger" You need to understand that these things have specific meaning in Gartner's world and You need to dig in a little before making your own opinion - these are not marketing terms as You may read them. If You want to provide other resources I am opened for them. If You want to reshape the whole article reusing the facts listed by me - please propse better version. I like to create things and I am opened for constructive critism, but please think for a while, what would You think when somebody simply would tell You: "I do not like You!" ? The article is not "promo", but set of facts! This article is at the end of the road just a short note about the company and its main product - nothing more. This article is meant to fill in a white spot as Wikipedia contains already similar articles about other IT companies like OpenText and Alfresco. I am wondering now how these arcticles have been created and confirmed in Wikipedia. If the article is "banned" it means in fact non-equal treatment and You should as well remove the articles about OpenText, Alfresco and going further also about IBM and Microsoft BTW, these companies are also listed in mentioned Gartner are Forrester reports.

I am not a perfect person - nobody is, but to be honest I was and I am waiting for the support to make this article better or at least acceptable. This is why I will try again to answer merytorically on the issues mentioned above by You:

• I am "Get The Things Done" type of the guy and this is why I am willing to get to the end of this discusssion in whatever way it will finish

Once a day I am checking updates - I do not expect it from You, but I would like to know at least when/from whom I will get the response and how the whole communicatio will work. I have double checked my previous post and I did not notice any impropriate tone in my writing - I just do not know how the process works and I am willing to find it out. I want also to close the topic efficiently, especially that I spend my private time on it ;)

• 3 sources - 5 linkages comment: As I have mentioned, noble and well-known in IT-world reports from Gartner and Forrester are paid, so I can not share them with You. FYI, Even if 10, 20 or 30 people except You will write below that Gartner and Forrester are not reliable source of information... this will not change anything and it will be still false information.

These are so strong brands on IT market that I do not need to prove it - they prove themselves. Simple technical question... Do You know how many companies world-wide Gartner report covers in specific categories each year? It is not 1000, it is not 100, it just about 20 and among this number You will find most often brands well known to You like Oracle, Microsoft, IBM. These reports are prepared by these agencies since many years, by very professional IT analysts (no, I do not know any of them personally). You can also easily find out how they select these companies and other details of their process - they provide full transparency in this matter.

Despite this, I have spent some time to find for You indepent extract from mentioned report (resource 1). If You do not trust it, You can make the research on Your own and check, if Gartner and Forrester mention the company or not AND what means being in specific quadrant. You will find out for example that "Visionary" does not mean the best in breed. Small tip in here: Open Google and see what images can be found after looking for the phrase like "Gartner Magic Quadrant 2020 Content Services Platforms" This type of pictures are very often shared in many various IT articles and IT blogs. "Gartner Magic Quadrant" is well known term among IT advisory experts. If Your treat source 2 & 3 (Gartner) as non-reliable and promo source... I would love to see You making this statement at some IT conference ;)

Source 4... The link point to german newspaper "pressserrade.de" - I do not understand why You claim this is "my web site". If You do not trust it please do the similar research as suggested for Gartner. For example: look at Google images for: "Forrester Wave ™: Content Platforms, Q2 2021"

Source 5... This was meant to be as-dry-as-possible source information about the company from non-IT world prooving just basic facts about the Company Profile. I did it mainly to limit any space for interpretation. Dun&Bradstreet... there is an article in Wikipedia about the company. Have You read it? Have You checked there since when the company exists, how many employees it has and how big is its revenue? (No, I do not know any employee from this company and I have never contacted them - it sounded to me just like a reliable source of information found on internet). I am really asthonished how easily You claim that such company is not independent and is not relaiable - can You provide some prooves/analysis for such a statement?

• If English is "awful" please help me to improve it. I admit I am not native-speaker, but still it does not sound like a constructive argument. Please provide correction suggestions - I am opened for them especially that this is not a long article.
• If I am providing too many sources help me to limit them.

BTW, If I would provide less sources then I would get probably the argument that there is too little resources. BTW2, I was asked about providing TOP 3 resources and I did it above, so I do not understand where from "bombing" argument comes

• If there is argument that this is "IT product promotion" please show me exact phrase where I provide "promo" or false facts? I was trying to avoid in the article any adjectives except sources titles.

Except this I try to use simple language where most info comes from various pages and as mentioned above just 3 out of 36 sources comes from company web page. The document is also formatted in such a way that this is very easy to dispute about specific bullet and statement. If You have better idea how to shape this information - please propose the alternative version.

If You have checked me.. have You checked something else except one of many companies with which I am cooperating right now? I admit I am not a young person and I work in IT for over 20 years in various companies - this is a major reason, why I want to share my knowledge - I feel old ;) I have published so far in Poland 2 technical books about various IT delivery aspects like Project Management. In the past I have provided the input to Wikipedia EN to other IT articles and I was just willing to come back to the same river ;), but I see that many things have changed. I repeat: "I am willing to share my knowledge" and so far I was a great fan of Wikipedia. Please be merytorical, spend the fraction of the time, which I have spend preparing this article and help me to keep the faith in the original concept of Wikipedia, which is sharing the knowledge. For now many articles related to ECM and BPM are quite obsolote in Wikipedia EN and I am looking for the person(s) with whom I can refresh the information starting with this (I thought simple) article.

It is possible that the shape of the information could be better - I am not a journalist and I am opened to work out better version of the article, however I need a help if this is the issue. From this point I see following options: a) Somebody will delete this article - this action will be in my opinion unfair, if the other, similar companies have articles about them in Wikipedia b) There is one or many persons who will rewrite this article without me - I am fine with it as far as new version will not present false information. I may even promise You to stop my engagement in this topic for some period of time if I know somebody else tekes it over and my work is not waisted. c) There is one or many persons willing to work on this article with me - in such a case I would like only to know who leads the topic to manage communication better d) There is one or many persons who will let me know what needs to be done so the "for deletion" badge is removed - in such a case I would like to know who is the main person sending these annotations as I do not want to be bombarded and I have experience with such communication knowing that very soon I may find mutually exlusive suggestions - somebody will have to take the decision then, which one is proper (eg. above too many/too little sources) e) The "deletion badge" is simply removed and any further improvements are done afterwards as it happens for many other articles in Wikipedia, which starts to live their own lives.

So... Please do not kill this topics so easily and as You are not the one who spent 24+ hours on preparing it. Let me know please how can we close this discussion quickly in this or in the other way. I am opened for any "tea", "teleconference" or any other collaboration plan which help to find compromise quickly and efficiently for all of us, the best in couple of next days. Let me know if this is possible to talk with You in a little bit more on-line version than Talk page. I am using Tesms, SkyPe and GoToMeeting, but we may use any other on-line tool.

Please don't play coy when you see you are losing the discussion. These tacts won't work. You not reading the guidelines and jumping to create a page and spending 24 hours is not our problem. When it was speedy deleted, did you consult anyone before recreation? Also read WP:OTHER. My suggestion (if you will pay any attention to it at all) - let this discussion be completed. If deleted, start a draft (not in mainspace) and ask help from others to write the draft appropriately since there is a clear COI. Please read all important policies like WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:NPOV and familiarise yourself with those. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at the contributions. I'm wondering if this username login was cracked or something - David Gerard (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Commment 13VII Akoszlajda (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have read carefully Your answers. I have different opinion, but... this discussion seems to take us nowhere as You start using personal arguments ("don't play coy", "I'm wondering if this username login was cracked or something")... Do not count on the same from my side ;) In one of the Wiki articles about Talk I have read that we should stay objective and positive :) If You have some constructive proposition please let me know it - I do not count providing next set of general guidelines as constructive proposition, because... If in a good will I will edit the article right now, You will contest it anyway. If Your major argument is COI, it seems to me that the only way how we can get to something positive is through the collaborative work, but so far none of You have engaged in editing article itself, so... If You do not have any constructive proposition please remove the article OR move it to the other "better place" :) If You decide to delete it, maybe the topic will come back in future as You suggest as "a draft (not in the mainspace)" OR maybe not. BTW, Is there anybody who would help me to edit this article in this or in the other place? :D (I guess I know the answer and I bet a beer or two on it, which the most probably I will drink with my friends sharing our opinion about Wikipedia :D).

• Delete. Barely disguised promotional material.Citing (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Commment 14VII Akoszlajda (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I give it one more try and I have just significantly refactored the article. The content of the article is right now as-fact-based-as-possible and I do not see the space to make it more fact-based ;) Again... any further suggestions are warmly welcomed, however I appreciate more concreate suggestions than generic statements, which are impossible for me to be handled precisely. Again2... I am happy to see anybody else co-editing this article.

• The problem with the article is not that it was a bulleted list but that it is a promotional pamphlet and not an encyclopedia article. It is a list of the company's products, services, awards, and clients, with only the barest details about the company itself. This content can't be salvaged without starting from new.Citing (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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.