Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustomerVision BizWiki


 * 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 and cleanup. Shimeru 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

CustomerVision BizWiki

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertisment. Reads like promotional copy, no assertiion of sufficient notability. There was a previous article (see Articles for deletion/CustomerVision on this company that was deleted, unsure if this is an improvement on that or not. ArglebargleIV 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is very similar to entries for companies that are CustomerVision's peers such as Socialtext, Jot and Atlassian. Not including CustomerVision in articles such Corporate Wikis would be an omission. This is validated by third party sources such as the only comprehensive review of corporate wikis (conducted by Network World) in which CustomerVision was rated higher than Socialtext.

There are many links to independent resources for CustomerVision and awards. Recently within articles on leading enterprise wiki companies with such qualified researchers as Forrester, Gilbane and JupiterResearch. With customers that vary in size from Fortune 50 to non-profits, CustomerVision BizWiki is a leader in understanding the enterprise market space (look at the case studies, as evidence off their site).

The entry is not intended to be promotional but is designed to assert sufficient notability.

Links: Forrester New Communications review Tech News Radio Jupiter Research Intranet Journal eWeek

This discussion was started over five days ago. Is it considered closed at this point?

Bkeairns 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - only links are to sites affiliated with the company; no evidence of coverage in independent sources to show notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ...article was not properly tagged with an afd tag on first nom.Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, I believe I originally tagged the article properly, but the tag was removed by a later editor. -- ArglebargleIV 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article reads like an advertisement, and a probable conflict of interest; the article creator's username seems to coincide with one of the founders of the company listed in the article (Brian Keairns vs. User:Bkeairns). In addition, it does not seem to meet the notability criteria for organizations or companies. Kyra~(talk) 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for cleanup. Article may read like an advertisement, but it does contain links to 6 independent sources, of which at least the one I checked is reliable and non-trivial. JulesH 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep The links are sufficient, and the article in its present state is objective, though it needs a copyedit.DGG 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple sources have been added.  I have partially copyedited the article and will also incorporate the sources as in-text citations (tomorrow).  -- Black Falcon 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:CORP. Black-Velvet  08:17, 16 March 2007 (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.