Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BP Logix


 * 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. The "keep" arguments are insufficient when weighed from a policy standpoint - all of the sources were determined by others in the discussion as being insufficient to establish notability. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BP Logix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A promotional article that violates WP:NOT. Additionally I don't believe the awards are adequate to confirm notability, though the analyst reports may be. Network Products Guide is a pay for play award. Once the promotion is trimmed, there would only be 2-3 sentences left. Practically speaking it would be better to have a blank slate. CorporateM (Talk) 01:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has the same structure as many other company pages. I removed the reference to Network Products Guide, as this reference is not necessary. There are many other analyst reports and highly coveted awards that meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

With the additional editing performed, and promotional words removed, this article now stands on its own. Open to any additional edits that may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources confirming notability. Examples are CIO Magazine article, KMWorld, and Federal Computer Week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 22 January 2014
 * These appear to be brief mentions and blurbs. Generally we need articles where BP Logix is the subject of the entire article. See WP:CORPDEPTH. BTW - if you are affiliated with BP Logix, you should disclose it and avoid voting on issues where you have a conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 18:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I second all of these points, except that I think it's fine for folks with a COI to participate in AfD discussions. If disclosed, the COI status can be taken into account by the closing admin. --Mark viking (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your first example is about BPM not BP Logix. The second looks like a brief report of a BP Logix press release. The third is a brief mention on page 3 of a 4-page article about BPM. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep content is informative, references are relevant. Not that this is the threshold, but I see many other company pages that are far less neutral and edifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltkpat (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 January 2014
 * Keep as notability also exists with several analyst reports on the company and the industry's most important recognition with Workflow Management Coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2014
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.  &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The closing administrator should note that the comment immediately above is the second !vote for this editor in this discussion. Also, IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) has not edited outside this topic. -   t  u coxn \ talk 04:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of Notability. The 6 accessible sources in the article contain just brief mentions of BP Logix. We need to see significant coverage. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article does not pass the relevant guideline for articles about companies: Notability (organizations and companies). The sources are not reliable sources and all the KMWorld Magazine sources are not independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. -   t  u coxn \ talk 04:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete . I've done a bit of searching myself, and there doesn't seem to be much independent coverage. KMWorld seems too ghetto and their articles look too much like barely edited press releases to be considered independent coverage. The CIO.com and FCW.com articles only have a brief mention of Logix. The product may have notable or even numerous customers, but we can't yet write about it in Wikipedia per WP:GNG. There is one in-depth review on bpm.com, but I'm not sure what to make of that site; there's no indication of owners on some "about us" page etc., just a blank "contact us" form; it does smell a bit of astroturfing. It seems that the field of business process management software doesn't get much attention in the more generalist computing press, at least not at the level of product/company coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Someone not using his real name. Nathanial Palmer is an analyst-type in the BPM space and a strong reliable source. If 1 more like that can be found, I would say they pass WP:CORP, though it can still be considered for deletion for being generally misleading and promotional (the analyst reports are obviously selectively quoted for example and that is misleading to readers). CorporateM (Talk) 15:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the field myself to evaluate that claim with certainty; there's a bio blurb about Palmer on KMWorld which says he was executive director of Workflow Management Coalition, so he appears somewhat authoritative per WP:SPS. As Ltkpat says below, there's also a 7-page report about BP Logix from Forrester Research, which does indeed indicate some notability. Hoovers also covers the company (article is paywalled as usual). There's also an interview on ZDNet with one of the BP Logix execs , but it's clearly marked as a piece sponsored by BP Logix. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Forrester Report is an industry standard. Informative report and covers competitors and overall current state of BPM players. Took a look at other BPM companies - Appian is a competitor, but has similar (and less independent) coverage in their entry. Nathaniel Palmer, also cited, is an independent BPM expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltkpat (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: Ltkpat (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.  &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ltkpat, for your info', it's quite common for articles that don't fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines to sit on Wikipedia, simply because no one has taken the trouble to nominate them for deletion. So, your observation about Appian will likely be ignored by the closer of this discussion (per wp:otherstuff). Finding another strong source of significant coverage like Palmer's piece is probably the best way forward. Also, only one "keep" or "delete" WP:!vote per person is usually made in these discussions, so would you consider changing your extra "Supports" to "Comments" to help the closer easily and quickly assess the number of different views? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes please do to avoid confusing. I think that's the third time Ltkpat voted Keep in the AfD discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Actually if you search for their old name, you can find more coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, e.g. this 2001 piece in Computerworld (web version). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just looked through all the Google/Books/Scholar and JSTOR results and found no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - just listings and press release reprints and paraphrases. Like CM, I'll change my vote if someone turns up another piece of significant independent coverage on a par with the Nathaniel Palmer piece. The article will need further depuffing, though. (Ping me if that happens.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has been further depuffed. Besides the Computerworld piece and Forrester write up mentioned by others above, here is another example of independent coverage in Integrated Developer News: .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Every source, ioncluding the Computerworld article, is pure promotionalism. and based on PR. Any material in Computerworld on a particular application or a particular product that is not a full formal review  can safely be assumed to be based on PR. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2014 (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.