Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelBuilder


 * 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. As far as I can tell, the main arguments for keeping the article—the existance of "reliable sources"—were refuted. Indeed, many of the sources provided are unreliable blogs. Given this, consensus seems to indicate that the subject is not sufficiently notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

IntelBuilder

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable content management system. References are reprints of press releases. Prod tag removed by article creator, who has a conflict of interest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Few notable sources, if any (certainly not on Google News or on the first ten pages of Google hits; all are press releases).  Sadly, this seems to be an example of how not to do PR.  "Awards" in article appear to just be organizations that have some affiliation with the program/company. -- >David  Shankbone  14:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable product from the "content management" spam farm.  The "awards" are pretty much limited to the industry, if they even have any significance there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Coverage by reliable sources here, here, here and here. Heavy pickup in online media Yahoo News, Scottrade and Zacks Agassan (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IntelBuilder Content Management System is successfully used by US Public School System (Broward County Public Schools) here and here. World Market Media is a Social Media Investment Community is successfully using IntelBuilder here and here. Keep AfD Agassan (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those aren't reliable sources, they are aspects of websites that regurgitate PR releases. We are very familiar with them, and how they operate, and they don't pass WP:RS.  Sorry.  If the company has a great product, it will eventually be covered by independent sources.  -- >David  Shankbone  16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *Keep, IntelBuider Content Management System is successfully used by US Public School System (Broward County Public Schools) here and here. World Market Media is a Social Media Investment Community is successfully using IntelBuilder here and here. Keep AfD Agassan (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't duplicate your votes. -- >David  Shankbone  16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite apart from the striking out of Agassan's comment as a duplicate "vote",it is worth considering the nature of the links Agassan gives there. The first one is a link to a Google search for "www.mycommunityschool.com". It is not clear to me what the relevance of this is. At least the first 40 hits do not mention IntelBuilder in their summaries, and if somewhere among them is a page which does mention it then it would surely be more helpful to give a link to that page. The second and fourth links are simply web pages which use IntelBuilder for logins, not coverage of IntelBuilder in independent sources, reliable or otherwise. The third link is to a page with a brief paragraph about IntelBuilder and a link to its website. This page is on a website which describes itself as "a compelling marketing and distribution channel for ... their listed companies" : in other words what we are given is a link to an advertisement for IntelBuilder. What is more, all four of them appear to be duplicates of links given already, further up this page: evidently it is not only votes that Agassan duplicates. Other links given by Agassan include pages saying things like "LLC is proud to announce that IntelBuilder Social Media Platform...", i.e. promotional press releases from the company. At least two of the pages linked actually use the word "ads" in their headings. In short, not a single one of them constitutes significant independent coverage, and most are neither significant nor independent. In fact, Agassan has persuaded me that this is not notable: if this is the best that can be done by someone who has evidently put some time and effort into looking for evidence to support "keep", then there can't be much notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2009 (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.