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 as an apparently non-notable product. --jonny-mt 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IBM WebSphere Business Events[edit]

IBM WebSphere Business Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nothing noteworthy here Bardcom (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please relist this discussion to elicit more comments please --Bardcom (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, wikipedia is not a directory, or a resource for conducting business as per policy WP:NOT. The question I asked is, "Why is this software notable?" and can you provide references or citations to back up any claims. Otherwise, this article is merely promotional. Also, be aware that the fact that you are an employee of IBM and are hired to work on this software may be interpreted to mean that you lack a neutral point of view. --Bardcom (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi, Yes I can see that the site isn't a directory. However today I am researching the other software products that interoperate with WebSphere Business Events, and note that every single one of them (most of which are IBM products) have entries in Wikipedia. That was what spurred me to note the absence of this product and therefor update it. I am a great beleiver in this site and use it a great deal in my personal life, thus a mixed reasoning for wanting to update. Although I can hardly be considered neutral from a logical point of view I hope you'd at least agree that my current version of the doc doesn't have any marketing spin on it - I have simply listed what it does and pointed to the generic definition for this type of software. As for notability.. I am not sure if the software could yet be claimed to be notable I guess as it was only released last week. Hopefully we can get the views of some other people regarding the delete and get a balanced view. Cheers Jtq4u (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - forgot to add, here is a master document that exists listing 50 or more IBM product entry pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm_software I wonder if the notability comes from the fact IBM is so large as to be notable? who knows.. anyhow I am just saying I wasn't adding anything out of the ordinary. I also added the new page to that inventry Jtq4u (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd just be happy if you can tell me why it's notable. If it passes notability, everything else will follow in time. Without an indication on notability, I'm afraid it's just marketing and this information would be better off on the IBM website. So, the key question to you is, why should there be an encyclopedic article about this produce??? --Bardcom (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am flattered that you think my image copyrighted.. It took me about 15 mins in word, using graphics which have permission for such reproduction. I'll have a think about some more detail, though most of it is provided via my first link on the page and I don't want to duplicate this. I'll take a look around see if it has notability in the market place yet.. though as I say it was only released last week - however there is a heavy precidence for listing ibm products - look to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm_software Cheers James
comment - I have taken a look on the web for "WebSphere Business Events" and there seems to be quite a bit of non ibm information on it, I'll add citations to this. Also Several list it as an "IBM flagship product"
comment - I have improved the description to give a nut shell description of what event processing actually is.. though still linking back to the main complex event processing page that previously existed. I must say that should this page end up remaining the process has forced me to improve it greatly when compared to my first version, so whether it remains or not the process clearly works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtq4u (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem here is that this is apparently a brand new release - can't possibly be more than three days old - of a product whose potential purchasers probably number in at most four digits, and probably not more than three. The brand and publisher is indeed notable; the particular product is not. Now, we have guidelines as to the notability (jargon for encyclopedia-worthiness) of commercial products; they're often referred to by the shorthand link WP:CORP. They basically require that some note be taken of the product by sources outside the business. I tend to interpret that fairly strictly: for me, the outside sources should also not be trade publications of limited circulation or interest. And, generally speaking, non-consumer software used in business environments should face a pretty stiff test of notability. Concern about using the resources of the encyclopedia for advertising is a particular concern.

My more personal interest is in clarity of writing. Some segments of the business world seem to delight in vague, evasive-sounding and unhelpfully general or abstract descriptions of what their products do. (And frankly, describing the purpose of software as "event processing" is a near-perfect example of what I don't like. I'd rather know what it feels like to have events being processed for the poor peons who have further data entry duties added to their job descriptions as a result of the arrival of "event processing".)

So, basically, what I am looking for is some evidence that this release is a significant event for people outside the realm of IT professionals who already use the other IBM software this release is apparently supposed to integrate with. If that case can be made, I'd happily change my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If what you say about WP:CORP is true then it needs changing because that is too severe a criterion which many other articles on other topics could not pass. Most maths articles, for example, have no notability outside that field. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are indeed many mathematical articles that are abysmally written: almost entirely free from context, and jargony to the point of being unintelligible to non-mathematicians. Probably some could be deleted or merged.

    On the other hand, even bad math articles raise few suspicions about being placed here to advance a commercial interest. Important mathematical concepts generally fit the profile of things you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not biting newcomers or criticizing the unfinished article. I'm very impressed with the diagram and the article expansion, etc. But my original question is still valid....why is this product notable? Why? --Bardcom (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hey there - thanks for the improvements, that reads much better :-) Jtq4u (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is about a brand new piece of business software in an emerging new field, not about the major corporation. Also, I don't see, and can't find, any references to any major customers using it - do you have any names or references or is this an assumption? I've no problem with the article being merged to a list of IBM products, without prejudice for this article being recreated once notability is established and referencable. --Bardcom (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (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.
More