Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (3rd 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 23:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ektron
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable company; given sources are non-significant and I have been unable to find any coverage that would pass GNG. Article was deleted by AfD a month ago, and this iteration was written by a manager at the company. Haakon (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ektron is a leader in the content management space as identified by numerous 3rd party sources including Gartner, Forrester, CMS Watch, and 451 Group. This article provides the same factual information as other content management companies including Sitecore and Fatwire. Is this not a significant source? http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article91/article91.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) What about Drupal, Squiz and the open source CMS's? This seems unfairly focused against enterprise level solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.199.32 (talk • contribs)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based mostly on reliable sources. CMS Wire was debated to death at the Umbraco AfD. There is no consenus if that is a reliable source. But, for this article many other sources are easy to find besides those alredy in the article (Gartner, etc.) A quick search of google news archive also turned out a Infoworld comparison review (in print too) with the competing Macromedia product, a PC Magazine review, another review. Also book coverage:  . Pcap  ping  16:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Gartner is an investment research business. Their editors are the customers who hire them to prepare reports.  Being included in their "magic quadrants" is insufficient for notability, that's just their version of a directory or "top 100" style listing.  This has been deleted several times before, and should have been protected against re-creation.  Book mentions all look trivial and incidental to me. The bottom line is that this is just another behind the scenes tech business that the general public does not interact with directly.  A very persistent spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement on Gartner is ridiculous, not even worth arguing. If Ektron is "just another behind the scenes tech business", how do you explain the entries for other content management companies of similar size and stature like Sitecore and Fatwire?  If Ektron is to be removed, why not other content management vendors?  Who gets to pick and choose which of a pool of very similar content management vendors should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk •  —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for calling my attention to Sitecore and Fatwire. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Sitecore. Pcap ping  19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's focused against companies and products who lack notability and therefore should not be covered in an encyclopedia. Haakon (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the COI issue that was raised. The Drupal page was actually written by their founder. That seems like a conflict, no?--213.123.199.32 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds unfortunate, but I haven't looked at it, and this is not the place to discuss it. Haakon (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I should note that far less covered software gets kept here by fanboys posting irrelevant links as "coverage". See Articles_for_deletion/FluxBB. Pcap ping  19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, how notable is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentico? Why keep them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.32.120.10 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of Articles for deletion/Kentico CMS. But this is not the topic of this page. Wikipedia is not consistent; other stuff exists. Haakon (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. How does a business to business software company prove notoriety? In the real world, executives use sources like Gartner, Forrester, CMS Watch, 451 Group, etc. to come up with lists of companies to evaluate.  It seems wrong to discount those sources since its those sources that executives use to determine where they are going to spend money on content management.  CEOs and CIOs don't search Google News or look for book mentions; they use trusted evaluation sources like those I've described.  Futhermore, if you delete the article about Ektron, you'd have to delete every article about every commercial CMS company since our notoriety is defined by the same set of sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. Here are some additional notability sources in addition to the ones I've provided. CMS Watch covers Ektron http://cmswatch.com/Research/Channel/CMS and has been identified as a more credible source for notability than Gartner and Forrester in the Sitecore AfD.  Ektron provided one of the first web based HTML editors called eWebEditPro, reviewed here way back in 2000 http://www.fusionauthority.com/reviews/2733-a-review-of-ektrons-ewebeditpro.htm.  Here's a recent video from a TV station in NH on Ektron http://www.wmur.com/video/21479305/index.html.  Finally, Ektron is covered in the Content Management Bible, one of the first and most important books on content management http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ektron&x=0&y=0.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, the article author, a Vice President at Ektron, is advertising this AfD at Twitter. Haakon (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, I never hid the fact that I was a VP at Ektron and my Twitter post was just a link to this AfD (I didn't know that was against the rules). I didn't ask anyone on Twitter to come defend my position, just a simple link so that interested parties could follow along.  I simply feel that Ektron, like other commercial CMS vendors, belongs on Wikipedia and I created a factual article with no bias or marketing spin.   I believe that I've demonstrated that Ektron is indeed a notable company and belongs on Wikipedia.  If I haven't, I'll keep digging up additional sources..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ektron is being used by some of the most notable companies in the world. I'm hoping that will further demonstrate the notability of Ektron.  Go to http://instoresnow.walmart.com http://amcentertainment.com http://dolby.com http://jacksonhewitt.com http://gearsofwar.xbox.com http://www.komen.org.  For proof, when on the homepage of each site view the HTML source.  You'll notice references in the HTML source to Ektron.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, but I don't think the fact that notable companies use the product makes the product notable--Walmart uses all sorts of things, from software to toilet paper. Also, it seems to me that you're arguing two diverging points; one that the software ektron (which is the article topic) is notable, and the other that the company (which is not the topic of the article) is notable. Establishing notability of the company would likely be easier, FWIW, but you still have a problem in that you have a conflict of interest. Seems to me also that you would be well served to incorporate some of the suggestions of additional sources suggested above. Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've changed the article to be about Ektron the company not Ektron the product. True, I work at Ektron but no one has claimed that the article is biased in any way.  I'd argue that Walmart or Microsoft using Ektron for their customer-facing websites is indeed an indication that Ektron is notable.  Given all the content management options in the market, would either company use Ektron if they didn't believe that Ektron was a notable company?  --Twentworth12 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make--the mere fact that a notable company uses some product does not make that product notable in its own right. And the fact that you work for ektron does suggest you might have a problem with both WP:COI and WP:POV. But I'll assume you're acting in good faith and take a look at your revisions to see what changes you've made. Nuujinn (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD. No claim to notability is asserted, nor is significant coverage from any reliable, third party sources cited to support such a claim in accordance with WP:CORP. Press releases and routine coverage are specifically disallowed as evidence of notability by WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I've updated the article to reflect Ektron the company, not Ektron's product- called CMS400.NET. I believe I have provided more than enough examples of coverage on Ektron (the company) from reliable, third party sources including: http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/macromedia-ektron-balance-functionality-affordability-327?page=0,0 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,478862,00.asp http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ektron&x=0&y=0 http://www.wmur.com/video/21479305/index.html http://cmswatch.com/Research/Channel/CMS.  http://www.cmswatch.com/Blog/1584-Our-latest-Web-CMS-evaluations.  Note, do not confuse CMS Watch with CMSWire as CMS Watch is a vendor-neutral analyst firm that works on behalf of CMS buyers, not vendors.--Twentworth12 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Pcap. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:20, 21 February 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.