Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cougar Mountain Software (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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cougar Mountain Software
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deemed non-notable in the 2006 AfD. It is possible for a company that wasn't notable then to be notable today, but I have seen no evidence that this is one of those cases. What I see is an article written almost entirely by a company employee citing sources that lack depth and/or independence, and that needs to be deleted again. Furrykiller (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The outcome of the prior AfD was speedy delete, not delete. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For some reason there's two of 'em in there -- the Jan. one was a regular NN delete, and the Feb. was a G4. Furrykiller (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it was a G4, then where was the XfD that produced a "regular" delete result? —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * here Furrykiller (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The 2016 PC Magazine article is in-depth.  The longevity of the company, going back to 1982, easily satisfies WP:SUSTAINED.  The sources in the article also include bloomberg.com, which is by itself a good indicator of Wikipedia notability.  A long list of hits in Google books includes dates of 2001 and 1991.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- just promotional 'cruft' and even includes an end-of-life message:
 * "Cougar Mountain Software previously produced CMS Professional, but this legacy product will reach its end of life in September 2017." Etc.
 * Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate web site. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Otherwise, just an unremarkable private company going about its business. Sources lack sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. Blomberg.com mentioned above is a user-submitted directory listing, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * According to our article, Bloomberg L.P in 2008 was worth 22.5 billion. "In 2000, Bloomberg News included more than 2,300 editors and reporters in 100 countries."  Bloomberg depends on reliability of its information as part of its business model.  Who are these "users" who are "submitting", and where do they "submit"?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Although Bloomberg is reputable as a news source, the company profiles that it provides are not created by Bloomberg, but are a third-party product. For example, on the page linked in this article, it clearly says: "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". This does not mean that the information is necessarily incorrect (or even promotional), but it does not carry the weight of Bloomberg's name as an editorial entity. bd2412  T 13:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that Bloomberg is the publisher and it is their name that is damaged if readers find erroneous information? S&P Global is itself a global company with 17,000 employees, so they have the resources to provide editorial and legal oversight to protect both their own name and that of their customer.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, Bloomberg protects their own name by providing a disclaimer explicitly stating that this material, though hosted under their name, is not their work. I don't think it could be any clearer than Bloomberg itself stating "Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". bd2412  T 11:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The titlebar of the page is "Cougar Mountain Software Inc.: Private Company Information - Bloomberg". Bloomberg is the publisher of the profile and publishes the disclaimer, and we trust Bloomberg as the reliable source that says, "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No current consensus
 * Delete The only thing I see in the refs entitled 'product reviews' is promotional material written by the company itself. Telltale signs are words such as "our", slick professional promotional wording, and mundane-routine coverage. The Bloomberg entry is run of the mill coverage of unremarkable facts about a company. This shows it exists, but does not satisfy GNG, ORG, and CORPDEPTH. No independent significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO, WP:NOTSPAM.  ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are more than two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - this PC Magazine review and this review from CPA Practice Advisor. Arguably, the software is more notable than the company given that the software is being reviewed here but since most reviews I have seen of the software reference the company name up front, I don't believe that is a real issue. -- HighKing ++ 19:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A news search brings back very little, and the sources already presented just don't seem sufficient to expand the article beyond a permastub. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S&P Global Marketing is not a source that establishes notability. This has been discussed with you before; pls see:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Semil_Shah.
 * User_talk:Drmies/Archive_103
 * User_talk:Drmies/Archive_103
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What is "a source that establishes notability"? WP:GNG requires "sources", which is generally understood as "two good sources".  As for "discussion", who are these "users" who are "submitting", and where do they "submit"?  As for RSN, see  (note that this source was previously known as investing.businessweek.com).   Unscintillating (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't meet GSF 323 (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The above account was created today and !voted "Snow keep" at Articles_for_deletion/Rajat_Bhageria_(3rd_nomination), at which AfD there is another !vote from an account created today. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the sources presented by User:HighKing - it as he/she noticed. Both reviews are reviewing the software, which is a company product, not the company itself. I believe some of article references do the same thing. So, these are not indicators of notability for this company. These sources do not provide some sort of detailed coverage about the company. Also, as noted above, S&P Global Marketing is not a reliable source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete On reflection, I agree that the CPA Practise Advisor review provides almost no details or facts about the company and should be disregarded as a reference. The first reference from PCMAG is still a good source since it provides a number of facts and information about the topic company (even ignoring the review of the software). Having searched further, I cannot find one more source that meets the criteria for establishing notability, therefore my !vote changes to Delete. -- HighKing ++ 11:04, 24 August 2017 (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.