Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharepointboost


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sharepointboost

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; all of the references are self-published (press releases etc.). The "Andy Dale Award" was an online poll with no assertion of notability. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Company is one of the major SharePoint Gold Partner and the source I have included are reliable, 3rd party and have been already used as reference for thousands of articles on wikipedia(I am referring to cmswire, sharepointreviews and microsoft)
 * I would appreciate if my answers are not deleted, like someone just did. I have spent almost to 2 hours to give a thorough answer, with references and example, just to see it wiped out again.
 * Please check if cmswire is or is not already a reliable reference for Wikipedia just by searching.
 * Press Releases have also been included as references by other articles. in 11 references I have included, only one is a press release
 * The Andy Dale awards is a well established and respected award by the Sharepoint community, the fact that is awarded by voting as no assertion of notability is a complete nonsense; is like saying that the democratic process as no assertion of notability because people elect their candidates through vote.


 * I will be more than happy to provide AGAIN reference and example for each one of my points, resting assured that you won't delete my answer again.


 * Regards Laurahappy85 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Honestly, I don't understand why these references are seen as not reliable. CMS WIRE is an important source of news for the SharePoint Community, and I am quite sure that does not publish payed reviews. Anyway, this is not really the point, if so many other wikipedia pages can use CMS WIRE as reference, why can't this page do the same? What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterminator (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends, to be honest. I will admit that I'm not an entire whiz at computers, but I do a lot of editing and can give some feedback on the sources in this article. Offhand, it could be due to the people publishing the articles. If an article has been released by someone working for the company, then it's considered to be a primary source and those can never show notability. If it's an article by someone who is just a random member of the site (and not an official staff member), then it cannot show notability regardless of how respected the person is within that community. You also have to realize that if the article is just a "how to" about the service, then that doesn't really entirely show how the service is notable either. I will say offhand that things such as business listings or listing that it's a "Microsoft Gold Certified Partner" isn't always something that will show absolute notability. It's not something to scoff at, but neither is it something that will show that this program is notable beyond a reasonable doubt. What is really needed are things like news coverage by uninvolved third parties and reviews by notable persons. In any case, here's my rundown of the articles:


 * 1) The issue with this one is that you have to show how the award is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. I'll be completely honest and say that out of all of the awards out there that are awarded for anything (books, movies, etc), 99.999% of them are not notable.
 * 2) This is pretty much a press release and does the same thing that the first link does, which makes it pretty unnecessary. Since it is a press release that has been published by SharePointBoost, it's considered to be a primary source per WP:PRIMARY and can never show notability.
 * 3) This is another link for the awards in the first link. Again, the biggie here is showing that this award is notable outside of the SharePoint community.
 * 4) The problem with this one is that it's not really an article as much as it's just a product page. It is not what Wikipedia would consider to be an article about the product.
 * 5), , These seem to be done by staff members, which is good, but you have to show that it's a reliable site. A good place to start asking questions would be with Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as they can tell you if it's reliable or not. Be aware that just because something is used on other pages does not automatically mean that it's actually a reliable source. Generally yes, it can mean that it's an acceptable source but not always. There's a lot of people who go on adding sources without really checking to see if they're considered reliable. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more on this. Whether other articles use it isn't really relevant as much as just trying to prove that it's reliable. It could just be that there's a lot of articles using a non-reliable source. (It's happened before, believe it or not.)
 * 6) The issue with this article is that it's simply too short to be really considered a reliable source and seems like it was predominantly written from a press release. Even if the site is considered to be reliable, even if it's a staff member... if a source is too short and is written almost entirely from a press release then it can only be seen as a trivial source at best.
 * 7) These are press releases and they are never ever seen as a reliable source that shows notability.
 * 8) This is definitely a reliable source, but the issue here is that it doesn't mention Sharepointboost at all, so it can't show that the product is notable at all. You might be able to use it to back up other information, but it will never show notability for the product. It just backs up a fact and backing up a fact is not notability in this instance.
 * The only other thing I see is that the article feels like it's written to be a little promotional, so that will need to be worked on. It's not terrible, but there's phrasing that feels a little advertise-y, such as "More than 3,000 companies from over 50 countries worldwide have adopted integrated SharePointBoost". :Also, please do not remove the AfD rationale by Scopecreep. You might've done this by accident, but please be more careful in the future, as this can be seen as vandalism by some. Removing the AfD rationale does not stop the AfD. (Not saying you did it on purpose, just stating this outright.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on now!
 * "If it's an article by someone who is just a random member of the site (and not an official staff member), then it cannot show notability regardless of how respected the person is within that community".
 * What's this??? So all the online magazines and newspapers are all not reliable because you don't know if the person writing is an expert??? This is insane!
 * CMS WIRE is a source with authority, just look at all the links you can find about it in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=cmswire&title=Special%3ASearch.


 * About this link. Maybe you are not familiar with SharePoint, but there are not many awards you can get in this field. You can make a research. One either can be awarded by Microsoft (and Microsoft Award has value!) as partner or be awarded by SharePoint Community, which is Handy Dale's award. You can't expect a SharePoint web parts developer to get a Nobel Prize or an Oscar!!Sterminator (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Sterminator
 * It doesn't really matter how many awards are given out in a field, you just have to show notability. One of the things that the nominator voiced as a concern was that the award is voted upon by the general public. The thing about the SharePoint Village award is that it doesn't seem to actually be run by Microsoft itself, but by Action SharePoint Limited, a company that just started back in 2010. The Microsoft award would indeed have value but just because there's only 2-3 awards for a specific thing does not automatically mean that it is notable. Like I said, Wikipedia is incredibly strict about what it considers to be a notable award. I've been looking at the company and while the company isn't a complete nobody, SharePoint Village seems like it's still a little young to be an absolutely notable company giving out an absolutely notable award. I do acknowledge that being a site devoted to a very specific product makes it difficult to gain notability, but it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the rules of notability. I know it's strict and that it might seem unfair that an award you see as notable might not necessarily be considered to show notability for a product/company you support, but most awards simply aren't considered to be notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Believe me, I feel your frustration. Rather than arguing that the sources and awards on the article are notable and reliable, I really recommend that you try to find other sources and articles to help bolster your claims as well as looking for help from the WikiProject community for computers.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case, since we have so many new users here for this article, I'm going to elaborate on what is considered to be a reliable source per WP:RS. A reliable source would be an in-depth article from a source that Wikipedia considers to be trustworthy and reliable. An example of this would be an article in a large news site such as CNN or a newspaper that even though it serves a smaller community, has been established as a reliable source. Now I'm not saying that the article has to have CNN articles about it- far from it. You just have to show that the sources you are using are from established places, which is one of the concerns that the nominator had over CMS Wire. It may be considered a reliable source, but it might not be. The thing is, you need to ensure that it is rather than saying that such and such an amount of article use it. I'll run it by the RS noticeboard for you and let the people there weigh in on it. Now I also want to elaborate on the worries about what is considered an expert or not. There are many sites out there that will allow any user that's signed up to create an article. This is what I meant by "staff reviews". For example, if CMS Wire is considered to be a reliable source then you'd have to ensure that every article used is by a staff member. No matter how intelligent a non-staff writer might seem, unless you have a way of guaranteeing the credentials and identity of the person, you cannot use that article as a reliable source. This is part of the reasons that blogs are so notoriously hard to use as reliable sources: anyone can write them and it's very hard to verify a WordPress or Blogger account holder is who they claim to be. (I know that CMS Wire is not a blog, but it's sort of the same premise when you have non-staff members writing articles.) Now as far as why people are pointing out the press releases, that's because press releases are issued by the company itself. Anything that is released by anyone involved with the company, whether it's the company president, a staff member, their publicity company, or anyone that is involved with the company or its software is considered to be a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. These sources can never show notability regardless of who issues them, although they can be used to accent an article. The only thing about using primary sources is that they are really only supposed to be used when you have multiple independent and reliable sources to back up the claims in the article, meaning that you should have so many other sources that using anything released by the company should be unnecessary. As far as who is or isn't considered to be an expert, an expert is someone that is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject. This means that they're considered to be so knowledgeable about the subject that they are quoted in books, articles, and/or other forms of media. You have to prove that they are considered experts per Wikipedia standards. I'm not trying to be mean or even trying to delete the article. I simply saw that there was a very new set of editors coming to Wikipedia to defend an article and I wanted to explain where the nominator was coming from. Maybe CMS Wire is a reliable source, maybe it isn't, but you should probably try to find more sources than just the CMS Wire articles because this is where it gets tricky. Some can argue that there hasn't been a wide enough span of coverage for the company or its software and that only one site has covered it. You've got to be able to show that other people than CMS Wire has talked about it. I'll run the page past the RS noticeboard, but again, I highly encourage you to seek assistance from the computer wikiproject members, especially if any of you are related to the company in any format. (See WP:COI)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Laurahappy85 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Hello, I am the contributor who started this article. I have carefully read this discussion and I would really appreciate if someone who has at the least some notion of what he/she is talking about can say anything sensible.

> First of, CSMWIRE is a reliable source because is an indipendent, 3rd party and reliable source (as stated on the wikipedia rules). If someone hadn't wiped out my answer you could have checked the links I have provided of other articles NOT MARKED FOR DELETION that uses the same sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=cmswire&title=Special%3ASearch

Here is an iconic example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogix_Software

16 references sorted like this: 4 CMSWIRE 3 from the company website (a real 3rd party reliable source) a bunch of blogs...expressly banned by wikipedia rules

2nd example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avepoint 3 references in total

1 from cmswire and 2 press releases...my compliment!

both are from the same niche market and both have never won any awards. Then, SHAREPOINTVILLAGE has a PR 4, has been online for over 4 years (and not 2 like you said) and is a reliable, n3rd party source. SharePoint developers software company CAN NOT win Oscars (If you assume that an Oscare is a reliable 3rd party source and not the background agreement of powerful production companies...which is) so each niche has it's own awards. Probably you have never heard of 'Premio Strega' but your ignorance about a particular award, does not mean is not NOTABLE ENOUGH because you don't know it. One of the CORE idea of Wikipedia was share knowledge I believe, or Not? The Other guy before you has suggested that because an award is achieved thanks to a vote is not reliable...now here is my question, NAME TO ME ONE AWARDS THAT IS NOT ACHIEVED VIA VOTE. Just one is enough.

Just to put a period to this point here is my WIKIPEDIA REFERENCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colligo_Contributor Colligo is in the same niche market, its reference include, sharepointvilalge, cmswire, blogs. Reference 3 and 4 are ^ Dale, Andy (8 April 2010). "SharePoint Awards 2010 Winners". Andy Dale SharePoint Blog. andydalesharepoint.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2 August 2010. ^ Dale, Andy (21 April 2011). "SharePoint Awards 2011 Winners". SharePoint Village. sharepointvillage.com. Retrieved 6 June 2011.

Just a precisation, all the examples I have provided are legit wikipedia article that no one has flagged for deletion, so my question is, why? Is that enough Or I should produce more examples...giving for granted that no one delete them?

So, please, before you juggle with assumptions, next time check your fact straight before.
 * Um, Laura? I'm trying to help you here and being rude is not exactly endearing me to try to continue helping to explain how Wikipedia works and to continue to try to bring other people to your article to try to help rescue it. Let me repeat that: I've not only gone out of my way to try to explain the arguments brought up in this AfD, but I've also gone out of my way to find people in the computer WikiProject to come over to help save the article as well as gone over to the reliable sources board to try to verify that you can use CMS Wire. This might not seem like much until you realize that about a hundred people might've looked at this AfD and your confusion and done nothing. I'm not the enemy here, despite you trying to depict me as such and despite you getting nasty with me. (sighs) You can argue the award and the current sources until you're blue in the face, but it's those same sources that made the nominator nominate the article for deletion. What I'm trying to say is that you need to start looking for sources other than the press releases and an award that is of questionable notability per Wikipedia's standards. Note that I said "per Wikipedia's standards", because Wikipedia is very strict about what it considers to be notable. This is not my own personal idea of what is notable, but what Wikipedia considers notable as far as awards go. And as far as other articles go, you cannot hold them up and say "but this article hasn't been deleted" because there might be other things that gives that article notability or it might just be an article that hasn't been noticed yet. Again, you cannot hold up the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and expect that to win your case. You must try to argue the point with reliable sources and if someone is saying that the sources on the article aren't enough, you have to go out and find more. Seriously, I'm trying to help you out here because it looked like nobody else was bothering to do so. As far as the whole "reliable sources" and "is this award notable or not" stuff goes, that's going to be the same regardless of whether it's an AfD about a person, company, or computer software. There's very little difference in the rules, which is why it's so hard for smaller niche programs and awards to show notability, which is also why they frequently get tagged for deletion. So please, before you start biting the hand that's helping you, please try to look into what I'm trying to do to help you. Just because I'm not a top programmer doesn't mean that I'm completely ignorant of what I'm talking about and that I'm not trying to help you out. In any case, I'm done trying to help you. I've tried and as there are plenty of other article to try to rescue, I'm going to focus my energy on them instead. I've told you what you need to do to work on the article. You can either choose to use that information and work towards making your article notable beyond a reasonable doubt or you could ignore it and hope that the meager sources you have right now will keep it. As someone who has been around the AfD block for a few years now, I can tell you that it's better to keep adding reliable sources and polishing up the article than to say "it's great as it is now, I'm not changing anything". That's the type of outlook that makes it more likely that an article will be deleted. If you are finding sources and someone is deleting them, try asking on the reliable sources board to see if they're usable as sources and if they are and someone keeps removing them, go up another step and report the reversions to the admins. I'm out. Good luck with your article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just coming back on to say that the RS Noticeboard members have looked at the CMS Wire links and so far do not feel that they would be reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards. If you have any comments, complaints, or feelings about this, please comment on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and debate it there, as this will hopefully be my last attempt to help with this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now review this, unfortnally i can not find one source that be deemed realible that would mkae this subject notable, i am not denying the existence of it as i have used it myself but wikipedia is based on Notabilty and Realible soufrces, unfortnally this does fail both, now if a source can be foudn that is realible and proves the existence of the subject in a third party then i see no reason why it oculd survive with help from experainced editors to guide the process of getting the article to minimum C standard and above. Sorry i can not give anything better or hope for the article--11:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails PP:CORP, bluntly the sources are junk. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:RS. ProQuest, a considerable and reliable news database that includes computer and Microsoft-related publications, returned one hit from M2 PressWire, which gave this disclaimer: "M2 Communications disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties." Hardly a reliable source., so zero at ProQuest. LexisNexis returned nothing on the company. And while I think a list of awards would be fine if it were used to reference a company's receiving that award, SharePoint Village citations are not being used for that purpose. I've also looked at CMS Wire, and their reviews have conflict of interest issues. They publish reviews on products from the same companies that buy advertising at CMS Wire, and these reviews are not comprehensive, critical reviews. See my notes at the reliable sources noticeboard for further details.Encycloshave (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Encycloshave's reasoning above. Dialectric (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, so now can one tell me what is a reliable source for SharePoint related stuff? Cause I am really curios. And do not say BBC, cause BBC will never say anything about SharePoint's web part providers!!!


 * And also, no one has answered to the main question: why Avepoint and Colligo can use these references as notable references? What refences do they have that are notable??
 * Sterminator (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AvePoint has similar problems to this article, and may also get deleted if more reliable references can't be found. Colligo Contributor has references from Windows IT Pro, Network World, eWeek and Profit (magazine), all supporting notability per WP:COMPANY. If you can find references like those for the company, verifying that either it or the product is notable, then the article would probably be kept. Scopecreep (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also see that AvePoint was listed in Deloitte and Inc. magazine's lists of fastest-growing companies: any similar listings or recognition for this company? Scopecreep (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete unless new sources can be found that raise the bar. I'm a little concerned that there are no local (=Chinese) sources for this company, which is what I would expect if it was truly notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, have a look at these two new refs: http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/galleries/file_sharing/231500073?queryText=sharepointboost http://www.thesharepointdude.com/?p=1189

Information week is absolutely a reliable source! Sterminator (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Niether of those counts as indepth coverage and the first one doesn't even seem to mention the product. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2012 (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.