Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sitecore


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sitecore

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I deprodded this software/business after some sources, like Gartner and CMS Wire were presented on talk. I feel it deserves a discussion under those circumstances; see Articles for deletion/Ektron (3rd nomination) for a comparison. There were additional sources there. I'm neutral for this one right now. Pcap ping  16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The following message was posted to the article's talk page. Pcap ping  16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I'm very new to Wikipedia but it came to my attention that this page may be deleted, in part, due to a lack of notable references. If I add additional references that highlight the company's coverage in secondary sources would the deletion be reconsidered? Industry references for consideration:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article91/article91.html

http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/Sitecore

http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/

http://www.cmswire.com/news/topic/sitecore

http://www.sitecore.net/Products/Resources/whitepapers/Forrester-5-Additional-Options-for-WCM.aspx?sc_camp=711866D66F644CF4AFF160F5C6E0B9DE

--Sakebouteille (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I presented a similar list of notable references on the Ektron page. The debate seems centered around Gartner, CMS Watch, and CMS Wire being notable references. I'm hope that if a decision is made one way or the other, its enforced consistently for all CMS vendors. --208.32.120.10 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nominated this for proposed deletion, after it showed up as a "but my competitor has an article!" in the Ektron AfD.  Gartner comes up with dismaying frequency.  They are investment related industry analysts; editorial writeups by them are essentially driven by the people who pay them.  Coverage in Gartner does not equate with notability.  Their "magic quadrants" pop up frequently as well, but as far as I can tell all that means is that Gartner has put you on a list, they're no more evidence of notability than inclusions in "top 100" lists are.  Inclusion of these things does not really count as editorial recognition.  And CMSwire is a website that focuses entirely on the "content management" sector, and as such is of such limited circulation and interest that it can't really make anything notable.  Moreover, the article itself is unambiguous advertising, and written in marketing-speak: ...a full-featured, content-driven Content Management Framework with separation of content and presentation. Featuring the concept of unified structural elements called Content Items, the system can be used for various content delivery scenarios... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's spam masquerading as an article. Its third-party coverage is not significant. I agree with the points Ihcoyc make. Haakon (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The CMS Watch guys got pissed that Sitecore cherry-picked only the positive findings from their report, which is not freely available, so they published the negative findings on their blog . Pcap ping  11:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I still don't think that "CMS Watch" has the kind of broad readership needed to confer notability, their standings as a reliable source may have risen.  One problem with trade-related coverage is that such sources can be swayed more easily by a "hyperactive marketing team", and this article is more of their handiwork. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to mistake them for CMS Wire, however. Haakon (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Found more coverage:     dk:ErhvervsBladet (mainstream Danish newspaper),    in their 100 list EContent. There's more dk coverage:  . There's also a bunch of hits on Dutch IT online magazines  . (There's friggin' 900 google news hits in total) Pcap  ping  12:43, 19 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.