Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPiServer

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPiServer

fails WP:N and has no third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of their site they get roughly 220,000 mentions online (it seems to be a pretty specific term, with the EPiServer syntax) with most these hits on news reports, descriptions and resume'. I do not think the Fortune Cookie link is a hoax. Notable acheivements include running the content management software for IS Solutions [1] whose clients include Toyota, Toshiba, Saatchi, Visa, Nestle, Volvo and Webtrends. Does this satiate the notability? Is there reason to suggest that information on the article is inaccurate or misleading? No easy job to get advertised on IS Solutions, Targetwire and Fortune Cookie, let alone be hired as developers/consultants. All in all, poor but essential article in the land where that which is truly notable is so unattainable it is scarcely heard of. ~ R.T.G 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-consumer online business using Wikipedia as a free ad server. Reads like a press release. The article is uncertain whether it wants to be about a business or its product: EPiServer CMS is a Web content management system. EPiServer CMS is used to manage information on an Intranet, Extranet or a public Website. With EPiServer all co-workers can create and update the organization's website from a Web browser without any previous knowledge about creating web pages. It can be compared with ordinary word processing. EPiServer CMS is based on Microsoft's .Net-technology. EPiServer's partners adapt the framework and create templates and add-on modules. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a "non-consumer online business" and the link it masks, WP:CORP redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not include the word non-consumer. Does that affect the statement from User:Ihcoyc (masked as "Smerdis of Tlön")? ~ R.T.G 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can click on links and find where they go, it seems a bit extreme to call them "masked". Nobody's hiding anything.

I personally think that linking texts with descriptive phrases makes what I write in these discussions easier to follow, especially to newcomers to the project, than tossing around cryptic shorthand links like WP:CORP or WP:CIVIL. Experienced editors know what they mean, but not everyone has that experience yet.

"Consumer" and "non-consumer" do not appear directly in WP:CORP (is this better?) But that notability guideline is simply an extension of our general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and prefers general audience publications. "Consumer" here means, "might have been noticed by a reliable, third party, general audience publication", while "non-consumer" means that any notice would be in trade or online publications that don't make a strong case for notability. Since this article is referenced only to its own internal sites and to brief, press release statements on a Swedish tech news site, it wouldn't make the grade anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has minor notability. That is a positive value. What do you say? ~ R.T.G 01:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is written like an advertisement, containing little more than peacock phrases about what its wonderful products can do for you. This would merit the current article's deletion even if the business were notable outside its field. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am picking at. There is not one "peacock" word on the article. Not a "wonderful" or even a "better than". It is a simpe description of the product and that pertaining to it albeit an insufficient one. Some possibly crappy or non-notable CMS have the full article with third-party source based on the fact that they are GDFLed. EPiServer is actually one of the most notable CMS in the List of content management systems. We do not yet have the page Award winning content management systems on which it would appear. There are possibly 100 wiki pages on CMS needing lots of work (including deletions I guess) Note: quite a few CMS were listed to delete along with this one. Not peacock, not corporation, more notable in its field than most. ~ R.T.G 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to advertise products but is an encyclopedia. EPiServer maybe better that those "crappy" CMSs but if they have third party reliable sources giving more than trivial accounts of the product they meet the guidelines for inclusion. 16x9 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 16x9, CMS is pretty non-notable for regard (publication, it stands on its own publications really) and of any articles I checked for comparison, third party source was often based on being listed as open lisenced (hence a very strong argument to keep a notable one or delete a whole lot more). I see you listed a few but this one is actually favoured by some massive corporate bodies and is nominated for the awards this year [2] (not that the corporations probably every heard of it...) But there it is. I think I will add a merge tag to Web Content Management System, Content Management Systems and Content management although a closer look may show something individual? ~ R.T.G 14:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: absolutely a noteworthy product in Scandinavia. Many big institutions are using or are going to use it. I've edited it to remove marketing speak and concentrate on the product and not the company. --Dittaeva (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment- Just because it exists does not mean it is notable. It needs significant third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well established product with substantial user base. Proxy User (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject .NET — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — whilst the article may need some work, it's pretty much the leading .Net-based content management system at the moment. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- do you have a reliable source that states that or are we supposed to keep because of WP:OR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16x9 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a reliable source that it's not? Proxy User (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not need one. To be included in wikipedia you must meet the WP:N guidelines and have third party reliable sources to verify claims. I might say Proxy user is a dick,^{[citation needed]}} it may be true but is not sourced. 16x9 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly you do if you're using that as a criteria to delete an article. Also, please keep a civil tone WP:CIVIL. Proxy User (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here you go. 16x9: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Though, as Proxy User has pointed out, whilst I appreciate you're a deletionist and that you seem to be looking to reduce Wikipedia's articles on CMS systems, you might want to try coming across as rather less confrontational whilst doing so — you'll find it leads to much more productive conversations with the rest of the Wikipedia community. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for assuming good faith. I would also argue all of those references are OR and are not reliable source as they are nothing more than press releases. 16x9 (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Assume good faith"? Why? Even when the evidence points otherwise? OwenBlacker is quite right, you're clearly on a mission to delete CMS articles, especially Windows based proprietary ones. I hadn’t seen the terminology deletionist before, but clearly it fits. According to you, everybody else has to prove why the article should be kept. Well, you haven't made a case that it should not be kept. As the nominator, the onus is on you to make your case, not the other way around. Proxy User (talk) 23:28, 5 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.