Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EVER TEAM


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

EVER TEAM

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete No evidence of notability. Of the five references, two do not mention Ever Team, two make only passing mentions, and the other (here) gives fairly brief coverage, not enough to establish notability. My searches have also failed to unearth substantial coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Three times speedied before. --Pgallert (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and block to prevent further creation of this page (as per 3 speedies). Looks like the page is being dominated by a single editor. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * JamesBWatson what do you mean by 'gives fairly breif coverage' they write a whole paragraph about EVER and put it in comparison with other worldwide vendors like Oracle, Microsoft and others. here is what they wrote in case you did not read it well:

'Ever Team France's Ever Team focuses on vertical-market solutions, SharePoint supplements and transactional content management in EMEA. It has a growing "footprint" in the energy industry. Ever Team is one of the few vendors that offers both Java EE and .NET platform support. Strengths: Cautions:
 * A substantial portion of Ever Team's new license revenue and growth derives from its partner channel.
 * Ever Team delivers a good program for services partner certification and continues to build an ecosystem for the development and delivery of composite content applications.
 * Ever Team delivers a range of products developed for fast deployment and low cost of services.
 * Ever Team has a very small footprint in key markets outside France, Spain and the Middle East, and must build an even stronger channel.
 * Ever Team's range of solutions — from those for small and midsize businesses to large enterprises — is not matched by the marketing muscle necessary to build visibility.
 * Ever Team will have to pick a primary focus and marketing approach to succeed.'

for the ones that you say do not mention EVER TEAM, in fact they do, but the document in which they do is a document that should be purchased, thus cannot be put online. if you provide me with your email address i can send you a snapshot of what they say about EVER TEAM.

thank you. --Sazarian (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * one more thing the company is a French based Company, so if you try to research on google.fr about EVER TEAM you will see results...--Sazarian (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the references cannot be freely viewed, that it cannot be established that they are reliable references. I could make bold claims about anything and post references that are only available for a high price. I agree that it probably exists, but is it noteable? I vote no.--Evilbred (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * you might also want to check those links

to see that EVER TEAM is acknowledged by Microsoft and that its products are listed and known on Microsoft Portals.--Sazarian (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * link1
 * link2
 * Directory listings are meaningless; no editorial control is exercised and the coverage is not even close to significant in depth.--Cyber cobra (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * also if you can read french, here is an intresting article:

business and IT news--Sazarian (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The Gartner coverage isn't of sufficient depth; the Microsoft directory entries are not discriminating by the very nature of it being a directory; the French article is borderline significant. Fails the "multiple" part of the WP:GNG. Article is also rather spammy. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both the multiple sources and significant coverage portions of WP:COMPANY. Jminthorne (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some additional sources:
 * Businessweek--Sazarian (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Snapshot--Sazarian (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EVER TEAM constantly participates in worldwide exhibitions and events such as this one, this and this
 * Listed in the list of TOP SharePoint Product and Consultancy provider on Microsoft COnsulting Solutions
 * One of independant companies that talk about EVER TEAM on this link
 * Sazarian (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Other intresting links
 * article1
 * article2--Sazarian (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Press releases don't count as they're obviously not independent. Doubly for sponsorships as they are literally bought. The Europolitics piece is only a paragraph and thus not significant. The others are bare-bones directory entries; I admit the BusinessWeek entry might be an exception . --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that the BusinessWeek entry is non trivial? Jminthorne (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to contain some actual prose analysis; I don't know what BW's criteria for including entries is though (i.e. whether it's discriminate or not). --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked to me like a simple listing; the site has a search function that appears to poll a database of many thousands of privately held firms. Jminthorne (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Business Week entry is indeed a simple listing. There is no independent assessment, but just passing on what the company claims to do. This is what Business Week does. Apart from the fact that this is not very substantial coverage, there are also the issues of reliability and independence. A good deal of Business Week's material is submitted by "users", and in their "terms of use" they explicitly state that Business Week is not responsible for the accuracy of such information. Consequently Business Week is not a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete (for now). I think there's not enough coverage for this vendor at the moment. Zero hits in EContent or KMWorld  for instance. Besides the inclusion in the paywalled analyst report, there's no other coverage in CMS Watch of this firm . Those aren't a must for a keep from me (see Articles_for_deletion/Composite_C1 for instance), but I'd expect some other significant coverage failing that, and that does not include Gartner magic quadrants, which usually has only a few lines about a company, and so does the businesswek catalog. Well-known French press would be ok because this is a French vendor and many CMS vendors tend to have a regional market (and notability). Pcap  ping  14:13, 8 May 2010 (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.