Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Composite C1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Black Kite 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Composite C1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Non-notable product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dmitry Dzygin (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Well, it is used primarily in Denmark. By querying http://www.google.com/search?q=composite+cms+danmark (or http://www.google.dk/q=composite+cms) it is possible to find some related news articles and some web agencies that are using it. There're also some Microsoft\s articles about the product[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. More of the same, a web content management system. Google News finds only three Dutch language mentions in a website called IT Commercie, which does not sound like it has any more than limited circulation and interest, not enough to sustain an article about a product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dutch is used in Netherlands, in Denmark we're using danish. Not sure though if it will show a better search result. IMO it doesn't seem to be affective to find info about a piece of software on "Google News", for example, I've found only one reference to Umbraco which is another piece of Web CMS and which has > 200k downloads. Dmitry Dzygin (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCommentWeak Keep This is a .NET CMS with coverage from Microsoft; it appears to be used in several countries. Microsoft has an article in English and a Microsoft-sponsored video [1] (here's their about page and the " people behind it "five guys at Microsoft who want a new level of communication between Microsoft and developers". Between the statement of responsibility and the MSDN.com domain here, I think we can treat that video as a WP:RS). It is also covered in a (paywalled) guide to CMS's , which aims to cover the (28) "standard content management systems in the Netherlands" (if Google Translate can be trusted) here. I haven't looked deeper for more coverage; in the absence of a specific policy of notability for CMSs, this seems like enough to me. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC) (Updated based on Pcap's reference finding.) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "Channel 9" looks quite like a video blog of some sort, even if it is sponsored by Microsoft. Judging by the blurb describing the 47 minute video, it seems to be using this business as an example to sell the advantages of the Microsoft products .NET Framework and LINQ, which is no doubt why it is covered on a Microsoft sponsored blog. In other words, it's covered as an extensive advertisement for Microsoft. At any rate, it seems to be addressed to "an industry"; apparently they assume that everyone whom will ever read that knows what that "industry" is. This is media of limited circulation and interest even if this product is a chief subject of that episode, and no I'm not going to watch that whole thing. We do have a specific guideline for products, including software products. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree: Microsoft is an interested party here, and you're right: those two sources above don't establish notability. Thanks for taking the time to share your assessment. :) Marking my previous vote as a comment. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "Channel 9" looks quite like a video blog of some sort, even if it is sponsored by Microsoft. Judging by the blurb describing the 47 minute video, it seems to be using this business as an example to sell the advantages of the Microsoft products .NET Framework and LINQ, which is no doubt why it is covered on a Microsoft sponsored blog. In other words, it's covered as an extensive advertisement for Microsoft. At any rate, it seems to be addressed to "an industry"; apparently they assume that everyone whom will ever read that knows what that "industry" is. This is media of limited circulation and interest even if this product is a chief subject of that episode, and no I'm not going to watch that whole thing. We do have a specific guideline for products, including software products. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I did a search on the usual sites/mags for this type of software, CMS Watch, EContent, and KMWorld, and C1 has zero coverage there (there are some false positives due to the name though). The same was true for Umbraco, and unfortunately that one was kept as "no consensus". There may be some US-centric bias in those publications tough; e.g. Sitecore wasn't really noticed by them until they started doing business in the USA. Composite C1 gets more hits in the same venues that Umbraco does [2] Version2.dk, Computerworld Denmark (quite a few articles scroll for a list, some google translations: [3] [4] [5] [6]), and the Dutch IT Commercie pointed out above (they have an office in Rotterdam, and are doing business there, which probably explains why it was noted in the Dutch IT media). Perhaps it has some regional success as some CMS-es seem to have, e.g. the Australian Squiz. Can anyone find mainstream Denmark newspaper coverage about it, like Sitecore has? It seems it was only the 4th one the Danish market in 2006 [7], so maybe not... Pcap ping 08:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.