Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceiton workflow system


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  05:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ceiton workflow system

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails CORPDEPTH. Might qualify for unambiguous advertising CSD. Every single ref appears to be the organization's website, a pr website, or otherwise promotional. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is not about an organization or company, it's about a software product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2fanboi (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - just added some relevant links, one is in German, hope that's not a problem --U2fanboi (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are more third-party references now then when the mark for deletion was added. The article is about the software product, not the company per se and it seems to be pretty objecttive. Mtmoore321 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where? A diff shows 3 new refs, one of which (the GBooks link) is duplicated. That one is a basic mention of CEITON that takes up part of one bulletpoint (WP:N requires that sources establishing notability be "more than a passing mention"). Another is someone's blog post that lists Ceiton among a list of vendors. The Springer link, which is the one that looks the best per the URL, doesn't mention this at all. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would claim the book is 'significant coverage' rather than a 'passing mention' as it addresses the relevant topics directly namely, the following details; that it's a workflow system, that it's used by media companies and that it allows integration using web services.
 * the 'list of vendors', as you call it, is more than a list as there is a small review of each vendor or their technology. Because it's a personal blog it might be seen as even more objective than e.g. magazine articles from trade magazines that so often make up the references, as these are often beholden to the companies they are reviewing insofar as they are also their primary source of advertising revenue.
 * I've fixed the Springer link, I had linked to the previous page. It actually criticizes the Ceiton technology so it can hardly be unambiguous advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2fanboi (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  18:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 24 March 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.