311:
company if a client makes a query about it. As such, there is no editorial oversight into the selection of companies by
Gartner in these circumstances. I would however trust them for facts about company that could establish notability such as a company being the market leader by sales volume for example. Setting Gartner aside, there is
382:- A company and it's flagship product's notability are inextricably related so articles about both are relevant of the purposes of discussion. Specialised software is not going to attract a lot of mainstream press. IT magazines are the appropriate ares for finding sources, and these sources are independent of the company. --
127:
Not notable, spammy, was CSD'd a few days ago but restored and recreated with less spam, however still many claims made without suitable references, is never going to develop into a useful article which furthers the knowledge in wikipedia, will only serve to advertise the company. I expect it'll be a
348:
Your links confirm only that
Crownpeak supply certain software, and that the software news media has reviewed it (in the same way they spend half an hour looking over every commercial software package). None of the links say the company or its product is in any way unusual. The Age article mentions
310:
guidelines makes more sense. I would discount the
Gartner report. I've had access to Gartner, and Gartner analysts, and even work with a consultant who has written Gartner analysis. For the purposes of notability, it is key to understand that Gartner will research and publish information on any
189:
Crowpeak is a company which provides hosted cms solutions, they function along the same lines of Joomla which is opensource and
Clickability which is in the same league. My first posting for the same was deleted as it was considered too much of an ad, so I rewrote it. I have currently removed the
286:
recommends significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The current article gives no hint that is achievable. The reference for the customer list appears to be the company web page, and the
Gartner "positive" award includes the appraisal "CrownPeak struggles to win enterprise
597:
Did anyone actually read the references? None of them are sufficient to establish notability. The first is a directory listing; the second is a promotional notice at salesforce.com; the third a press release; and the fourth a
Gartner rating. None of those amount to the significant coverage in
407:
company releasing software sold for more than, say, $ 100 is "notable" (because there will be "reviews" of all such software – that's how the IT magazines make articles and sell ad space). I haven't seen a source (let alone a secondary source suggested by
437:
uses coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. IT magazines do not review every piece of software available. There is an editorial process in determination of topics and the creation of their articles. Other notability guidelines such as
433:- Firstly, there have been plenty of software articles that have been deleted due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, so your fear that every piece of software released will be given an article is unfounded. Secondly, our
517:
I notice that the comment above is your second ever contribution to wikipedia. Whilst I am pleased you chose to add to this debate, might I politely enquire if you have any form of vested interest in the company?
190:
list of awards for which I do not have a reference from a notable site. I can build it along the lines of Joomla, where the focus is on community. Would that help. Any other suggestions.
555:
for now? No offense to sally, its great if she is interested in participating in the AFD section but with a total of two edits, one wouldn't expect an edit to AFD to be one of the two.
120:
128:
keep because of some obscure news which, if anyone can be bothered to spend their time on, will turn out to support some but not all of the claims on the page. I appeal to
353:
link confirms my above comment that notable means "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I think the most appropriate policy/guideline is
469:. I believe the page gives a snapshot of the company from several third party resources. But yes it does have room for more improvement in the content.
230:. I agree with User:Jenuk1985 that it would be possible to replace the existing content with a NPOV, well-sourced article with this title.—
499:
54:
17:
312:
241:
495:
87:
82:
91:
642:
36:
155:
Delete. I added the ad tag, but a few days later there has been no improvement. Still no evidence of notability. --
74:
403:
I won't be very unhappy if people want to keep this article, but the logical conclusion from your reply is that
641:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
129:
503:
52:
491:
477:
238:
625:
607:
585:
566:
535:
481:
451:
421:
391:
370:
336:
296:
275:
248:
222:
199:
184:
164:
149:
78:
56:
575:
556:
487:
473:
216:
180:
320:
417:
366:
316:
292:
70:
62:
603:
195:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
439:
409:
354:
283:
552:
548:
434:
412:) saying there is anything unusual about this company or its software (it's not notable).
231:
621:
528:
447:
387:
332:
324:
268:
210:
176:
160:
142:
350:
307:
413:
362:
288:
599:
349:
Crownpeak and some other products, only to dismiss them and recommend another. The
191:
108:
442:
are supplemental to the primary notability criteria and do not replace them. --
574:- added spa tag just in case. Just a thing for the closing admin to consider.
617:
521:
443:
383:
328:
261:
156:
135:
361:
recommend adding every company that has ever released a software package.
258:
It might be possible, but will it happen? If removed, what info is lost?
208:
I can see no reason why this can't be improved rather than deleted.
635:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
616:
And what of the ones I posted earlier in the discussion? --
306:- rather than appealing to common sense, appealing to the
115:
104:
100:
96:
598:reliable sources required to establish notability.
319:. The Age, a major Australian daily sees fit to
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
645:). No further edits should be made to this page.
171:Too much focus on company awards and leaders.
8:
48:. Largely for the reasons listed by Whpq. –
506:comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
287:business from traditional competitors".
323:, but more importantly point to more
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
502:outside this topic. The preceding
132:, but with a great deal of hope.--
24:
1:
547:- Hm. Do you think this is a
435:general notability guidelines
662:
626:23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
608:22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
586:01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
567:01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
536:15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
482:05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
57:03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
452:10:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
422:04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
392:03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
371:02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
337:19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
297:10:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
276:15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
249:11:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
223:10:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
200:10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
185:09:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
165:09:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
150:09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
638:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
500:few or no other edits
515:Comment re. Sally12d
44:The result was
534:
507:
325:in-depth coverage
274:
148:
653:
640:
582:
578:
563:
559:
533:
531:
525:
519:
485:
273:
271:
265:
259:
246:
236:
221:
219:
213:
147:
145:
139:
133:
118:
112:
94:
34:
661:
660:
656:
655:
654:
652:
651:
650:
649:
643:deletion review
636:
580:
576:
561:
557:
529:
523:
520:
269:
263:
260:
245:
242:
232:
217:
211:
209:
143:
137:
134:
114:
85:
69:
66:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
659:
657:
648:
647:
631:
630:
629:
628:
611:
610:
591:
590:
589:
588:
551:? Or shall we
541:
540:
539:
538:
471:
470:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
425:
424:
395:
394:
374:
373:
340:
339:
300:
299:
278:
252:
251:
243:
225:
203:
187:
168:
167:
130:WP:COMMONSENSE
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
658:
646:
644:
639:
633:
632:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
596:
593:
592:
587:
584:
583:
573:
570:
569:
568:
565:
564:
554:
550:
546:
543:
542:
537:
532:
527:
526:
516:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
483:
479:
475:
468:
465:
464:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
419:
415:
411:
406:
402:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
347:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
309:
305:
302:
301:
298:
294:
290:
285:
282:
279:
277:
272:
267:
266:
257:
254:
253:
250:
247:
239:
237:
235:
229:
226:
224:
220:
214:
207:
204:
201:
197:
193:
188:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
169:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
146:
141:
140:
131:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
637:
634:
594:
579:
571:
560:
544:
522:
514:
472:
466:
430:
404:
400:
379:
358:
357:and it does
345:
321:mention them
303:
280:
262:
255:
233:
227:
205:
172:
136:
126:
50:Juliancolton
45:
43:
31:
28:
498:) has made
351:notability
308:notability
234:S Marshall
577:FingersOn
558:FingersOn
212:Jenuk1985
177:Alexius08
71:Crownpeak
63:Crownpeak
504:unsigned
496:contribs
488:Sally12d
414:Johnuniq
363:Johnuniq
289:Johnuniq
121:View log
600:ukexpat
572:Comment
545:Comment
440:WP:CORP
410:WP:CORP
355:WP:CORP
346:Comment
284:WP:CORP
256:Comment
202:Belmond
192:Belmond
88:protect
83:history
595:Delete
553:WP:AGF
549:WP:SPA
484:sally
327:. --
315:, and
281:Delete
173:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
581:Roids
562:Roids
524:Chzz
474:Sally
431:Reply
401:Reply
380:Reply
264:Chzz
138:Chzz
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
622:talk
618:Whpq
604:talk
492:talk
478:talk
467:Keep
448:talk
444:Whpq
418:talk
388:talk
384:Whpq
367:talk
333:talk
329:Whpq
317:this
313:this
304:Keep
293:talk
244:Cont
228:Keep
218:Talk
206:Keep
196:talk
181:talk
161:talk
157:Dmol
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
405:any
359:not
624:)
606:)
530:►
518:--
508:.
494:•
486:—
480:)
450:)
420:)
390:)
369:)
335:)
295:)
270:►
215:|
198:)
183:)
175:.
163:)
144:►
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
620:(
602:(
490:(
476:(
446:(
416:(
386:(
365:(
331:(
291:(
240:/
194:(
179:(
159:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.