Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellent


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stellent
This is not a note-worthy company. Unless someone can cook up some comment this article is just cruft. goofyheadedpunk 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP.  Another example of complete gibberish masquerading as English prose, too. Tevildo 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the company has apparently been nominated for a few small-business type awards, but then these things are a dime a dozen. If the subject is notable, its article has not made the case for this in the almost two years since the article was started. -- H·G (words/works) 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a Google search proves it clearly passes WP:CORP. Independent publisher APress has recently published a 500 page textbook on their technology. That satisfies criteria 1 for a noteworthy company. According to the enterprise content management page, Stellent is considered a leader in their industry by independent analysts Gartner and Forrester, and occurs frequently in their publications. That satisfies critera 2 of a noteworthy company. Only one criteria is needed to qualify, so by Wikipedia rules the page must stay. However, I fully agree that the page looks terrible and somebody needs to update it.--72.135.39.217 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although this particular article is relatively uninformative and badly written, the company deserves a place on Wikipedia.  Their Content Management System is used in many coporate offices.  Information on their philosophies and products should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.124.151.5 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment: Recommendations of IP addresses are generally ignored, please sign in or get an account. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be listed on major exchange NASDAQ. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm the author of the aforementioned book published by APress. I'd be willing to expand on the company's wiki page if you keep it. Otherwise, somebody on their Yahoo user group for developers might be willing. Its got 2000 members, and 11,000 archived articles on Stellent's technology. I' m a little surprised that people would consider this not a note-worthy company.--Bex 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, to my mind, pushing an article up for deletion every so often is a bit like Wikipedia's Natural Selection. If the article is voted to be retained it will likely be improved more than it would have were a stub or cleanup tag put on it. If the article is voted to be deleted then we've just cleaned up a bit of cruft. The Wikipedia has a lot of stubs and useless articles in it and low traffic articles don't recieve much attention even with a stub tag, so it may well be worth it to delete that which we weren't keeping up. No offense, of course; just trying to shake things up in a constructive manner. goofyheadedpunk 05:34, 17 July 2006 (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.