Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MerchantTribe

I'd like to understand specifically how you came to the conclusion that MerchantTribe is non-notable while nopCommerce has an article on Wikipedia. There are many other shopping carts such as Lemon Stand that have far less notability and were created very recently yet they also have articles that are uncontested.

The wikipedia guides require that the article source be Verifiable, Have third party references and that notability does NOT depend "on things like fame, importance, or popularity."

MerchantTribe is the new name for BV Commerce which was the first commercial shopping cart software for ASP.NET and was released in Feb 2002. This is notable but hard to verify so I understand hesitation. However, there are tons of third party articles online about BV Commerce, BV Software and MerchantTribe. We have more than 5,000 stores using our platform including Chesapeake Energy (Fortune 500 company), Pebble Beach Resorts, TastyKake, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Disney Animation Studios, etc.

Here's a recent example about MerchantTribe: http://www.appliedi.net/blog/2011/12/29/merchanttribe-a-new-open-source-ecommerce-platform-integrating-social-analytics-2/

Furthermore, if I compare the sources that appear to be valid for nopCommerce they match up almost exactly to the sources for MerchantTribe:

Microsoft's Web App Gallery: http://www.microsoft.com/web/gallery/merchanttribe.aspx

Practical Ecommerce Magazine's Cart of the Week Article: http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/1704-Cart-of-the-Week-BV-Commerce http://www.practicalecommerce.com/podcasts/episode/1199-Marcus-McConnell-of-BV-Commerce

CodePlex Source Code Listings: http://www.codeplex.com/site/search?query=shopping%20cart&sortBy=Relevance&licenses=|&ac=3 http://merchanttribe.codeplex.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcconnell16818 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 January 2012‎ (UTC)


 * As explained at WP:PROBLEM, we do not delete articles because of content problems. If an article's not well-written, contains errors or fails to cite sources (as long as they're out there), all of that can be always be fixed by anyone willing to put in the effort.  But to have an article on Wikipedia, the topic needs to be WP:NOTABLE:  Someone other than the people connected with the topic have to have decided it was sufficiently interesting that they thought about it and wrote something that got published in a reliable publication.  This is a more technical, more precise use of the term than most of us would use in ordinary conversion where, if something seems notable, that's close enough.  Here, it's not enough that an author thinks his work should be notable (e.g., because of all the obvious neat features), it actually has to be. It's not enough that others should take note, they actually have to do it.  If we didn't do this, we'd be overrun with spam. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. But this bar of notability really isn't that high.  If a couple reliable independent sources say a topic is notable, we take their word for it. Right now, the topic doesn't have those sources.  From WP:INDEPENDENT, "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."  Also, from WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."  Msnicki (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)