Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahia (4th 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   delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by SPA with COI. While it looks well sourced, the coverage that is reliable is not significant, and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly Salt, as the article has been deleted three times and re-created each time. (The latest incarnation of the article was proposed for speedy deletion, which was rejected with the edit summary "Not eligible for Speedy", with no explanation why it was not eligible.) The author of the article has put a good deal of work into providing what superficially look like good references. However, most of them were nothing of the sort. For example, an "article" by Geoff Spick on CMSWire was cited. On the face of it, that article looks good. However, if you look carefully you will see that that article's only source is Twitter. Other sources likewise do not stand up to careful analysis. Then there is the section of the article headed "Analyst Coverage". This looks to me to be totally promotional in intention: much of its content is included, as far as I can see, just to provide material to attach citations to, and to serve as a pretext for giving promotional quotes about Jahia. Then there is the use of actually false claims. For example, the article said: In August 2009, Gartner the world's leading information technology research and advisory company included jahia into their "Magic Quadrant for Web Content Management" In fact Gartner includes Jahia in a list of companies which it explicitly states do not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the "Magic Quadrant", but which "clients might consider alongside those appearing in the Magic Quadrant". Naturally I have removed this false claim form the article. However, I wonder how many other claims might fall down if one checked enough, but unfortunately what I have so far found has already taken too much time. Then we have statements like "Jahia has also been covered by the 2009 Open Source CMS Market Share Report". Frankly, so what? The fact that the market share of a product has been assessed by an organisation that assesses the market shares of products is scarcely noteworthy information about that product. In the light of what else I have seen I wonder if that statement may have been included purely as a hook to attach yet another reference to, so as to give the impression that the article is well-sourced.
 * It is clear that the author of this article has done a very detailed professional PR job, going to considerable attempts to find what look like good references. The article has twice before been deleted at AfDs, and presumably the company wanted to do their best to make sure it looked good enough to keep this time. However, I can see no evidence at all for the existence of notability by Wikipedia's criteria. Many of the original "references" and external links have been removed as unsuitable for one reason or another, and those that are left do not establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The admin who declined the speedy left reasons on my talk page. felt that it was not substantially the same as the one previously deleted by AfD last year. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There has been discussion about the reliability of CMSWire in the AfD for Umbraco, still ongoing. I'm undecided if it's a reliable source or not. Pcap ping  16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether CMSWire is generally a reliable source or not is irrelevant, because in this case it states that its source is Twitter. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Whether CMSWire is a reliable source may be beside the point: whether it's reliable or not, it's a medium of limited circulation and interest, unlikely to be read by anyone without a professional interest in "content management systems".  Any notability guideline that allows such things in is failing.  And all of these petty tech businesses selling services to other businesses are an Augean stables that needs to have a river diverted on top of them.  Their interest in using Wikipedia for self-promotion and to hire PR businesses who have learned how to make superficially plausible articles will always outstrip the ability of volunteer editors to evaluate them.  As the nominator shows, it's hard to assume good faith about these; in fact the more superficially plausible they appear, the more suspicious they look.  At any rate, this is unambiguous advertising: Java-based web content management system integrated with document management and corporate portal features....From an end-user perspective, the front-end WCM is characterized by its in-context publishing interface. The Jahia WCM focuses on multisite and multilanguage capabilities. The Jahia overall design aims to provide modularity and scalable performance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:47, 9 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.