Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahia


 * 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. notability appears to be demonstrated'''. - Philippe 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jahia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't meet notability requirements of WP:CORP. I did a google search and couldn't find anything that came close to significant coverage by an independent, reliable source. Tan  |   39  15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that I am aware that this is software, not a company, but if you read the article, it's written synonymously. Is there a (current) notability guideline for software? WP:WEB doesn't really fit here. Tan   |   39  15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep. The article is not about Jahia Ltd (there is a one sentence mention); it is about the open source software presented by the company. WP:CORP doesn’t apply here. As for confirmation on notability on the actual subject of the article:


 * Germany’s leading newspaper
 * Highly respected online tech media outlets, , ,
 * Commentary from the highly notable Forrester Research (gotta pay for it)

Merci beaucoup! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, considering most of those are in a language I don't understand, it's hard to form a cogent rebuttal. However, the ones that are in English don't constitute significant coverage - the fact that this software is mentioned isn't significant. The one that is "about" Jahia just seems to be a niche publication stating that 1) it exists and 2) its features. Not to make any judgments here either, Eco, but the fact that you and I have been criticizing one another lately gives some suggestion to "revenge" on this !vote. "Strong keep"? "Highly respected"? "Highly notable?" Your vote is overflowing with weasel words and POV. Looking at the front page of www.welt.de, I have a very hard time believing this is "Germany's leading newspaper". Tan   |   39  15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Die Welt is one of Germany's leading newspapers - the web site may be iffy, but the newspaper's reputation is very well known. Having worked in the tech field, I am aware of Forrester Research's reputation, which is very easy to confirm.  Online tech media is overflowing in quantity but erratic in quality, and I specifically chose three that I knew to be well regarded by those who work in bits and bytes. And, circling back to the beginning, the article is about the software and not the company, so WP:CORP doesn't apply. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stated that I was aware of this in my opening comments, but you chose to ignore that. If you read the article, there are parts that make the article synonymous with the organization. BUT, that aside, open source software still needs to abide by notability requirements. None of the diffs you provided constitute significant coverage of this software. There have been many, many precedents to this. Tan   |   39  16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Die Welt is indeed a well-respected newspaper, but unfortunately the article linked above is nothing to do with this subject. It has a couple of mentions of the Director of the Algerian Human Rights League, Abd al-Nur Ali-Jahia, but I very much doubt if he has any connection with this software. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you Google! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I just came to comment on a subject where I have more than a passing knowledge, nothing more. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. As per concern, I removed the overly descriptive verbiage. I don't use the expression "weasel words" because it is not fair to weasels (really, have you ever had a dubious conversation with a weasel?) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (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.