Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solodev

Add links
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 delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solodev

[edit]


Solodev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We had an article on this software/company from 2007 until this August, when it was PRODded on the basis of a notability concern. The current form was then submitted as a draft and languished in AfC for a while. Although there is coverage in local press and some other sources, I don't think the company meets WP:CORP, but at the request of the creator I've moved the draft to mainspace and nominated it for deletion to get a wider consensus. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Yes, there is local press on the company because it's based out of Orlando so it's covered by Orlando media because it's a major tech company in Orlando. It's also written about in Georgia, California, Philadelphia, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Las Vegas. The company is also featured in national publications like Inc. 5000, TechRepublic, ITBriefcase, ZDNET, and NetworkWorld.com, as well as industry specific publications like CMSCritic and CMSWire, not to mention being listed on the Amazon Web Services Marketplace. —comment added by mattmclaren (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Mike here from CMS Critic, we've covered Solodev for a long time, they are not only a worldwide company with an established CMS, they also recently won an award from us based on our readers choice as Best Cloud CMS. While I understand Wikipedia's desire to reduce spammy pages, this simply isn't one of them. I'd be happy to discuss further if required. — Cmscritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEP: I don't really see how notability is even an issue here. I'm in DevOps so I think I can speak to the notability of enterprise software. This company is a long term Amazon Web Services Partner and first web content management system built for AWS, they're an Inc. 5000 multi-million dollar software company, they're competing with WordPress, Sitecore, Sitefinity, and doing well according to their revenues in Inc. 5000. Much smaller web content management systems are on Wikipedia. I say Keep. — Webdevops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC). WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The above users all appear to have been canvassed off-wiki. Please be aware that this is not a vote, it is a discussion amongst editors on whether to keep the article based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this case the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability, which in brief states that we can only cover topics that have been the subject of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Arguments based on personal opinions or achievements of the company that are not reflected in third party coverage will carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus by the closing administrator. – Joe (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The keep !voters look like SPAs. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. With all due respect to Mike from CMS Critic, "Solodev, winners of our "Best Cloud CMS" award are pleased to announce [...]" does not strike me as independent coverage - at best that's a rehashed press release, full of superlatives. Huon (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Mattmclaren and Webdevops are  Confirmed sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon Web Services is notable , but not every Amazon Web Services Partner is notable. WordPress is notable , but not everyone who competes with it is notable. It's only written about in industry publications that try to cover everything in the field, notable or not. Such trade publicationsare very valuable for those in the field, but they do not show notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not only was I the PRODer but I also declined the AfC, because it's quite clear this is all PR and any attempts make it otherwise still become PR, that's damning enough for us and our policies explicit suggest deletion. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as current article text focuses on product catalog than insights into the company. Better rewritten ... Devopam (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Local sources don't establish notability for companies. Other sources are not independent. I was unable to find independent sources elsewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it seemed a bit, shall we say, unusual, to move a draft to mainspace just to AFD it. But It seems it was agreed to[1], even if the drafter may not have understood what a bad idea that was. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you have suggested? It was shaping up to be yet another one of the perpetually submitted and declined drafts that clog up AfC. I tried advising the author not to re-submit it but clearly they weren't happy to follow that advice. At the end of the day AfC is an optional process. It felt bitey to insist that my word on its notability was final, or to try and hide the fact that the author could simply move it to mainspace themselves at any time. So rather than going through the motions and winding up here anyway, I cut straight to AfD. – Joe (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE-DRAFT - this draft should of never been moved to mainspace. It can be worked on back in Draft space until such time as notability is better established. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator of the draft explicitly asked me to move it to mainspace, and is now indef blocked for using sockpuppets. I don't see it being worked on further. I think it would be better to reach a more conclusive consensus on whether the company is notable or not. – Joe (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Joe. The topic is either notable or it is not. Let's finish our notability assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Solodev notable is that they are among the first, if not the first, CMS to be based on AWS Cloud. They have customers internationally on this, even in Denmark /Janus Boye
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solodev&oldid=1089519974"