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. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been aserted and neutrality may not be given. Tikiwont 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is adequate, but I'm not sure a product used by a few local government organisations is notable. Possibly merge to article on its parent company, if such an article exists. Walton monarchist89 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The software is used by some major corporations including nokia, 32Red, lexis nexis butterworths, the largest uk student travel operator, lombard finance. Other than being fairly wide spread across multiple sectors it is used by a number of major online publishers who (amongst others) take advantage of the unique theme engine which provides manual, semi automated and automated semantic relationships between content meaning extrememly high search engine visibility for content out of the box which has had a dramatic ROI implications (300% increase for www.moneyweek.com in subscriptions year one) - is that functionality notable enough?
I deliberately didnt put in any sales patter as I didnt want this to be seen as an advert. However I am happy to extend the product details to have a list of features and functions in-line with some of the open source offerings if that makes more sense? mememan
Comment: I've nominated this article here and removed my original db-spam template for two reasons. By itself (1), it raises the question if the article could and would have been written by anyone without affiliation to the creator, but still it deserves a thorough review. Moreover, the outcome of such a debate should (2) shed light on the whole Category:Content management systems which I'd want to have reviewed. Tikiwont 09:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With point (2) I actually wanted to say: shed light on the whole Category Content management systems, but unfotunatly did I mark this up in the text, so it wasn't visible. Tikiwont 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —xyzzyn 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a classic case of conflict of interest. A company insider comes with the purpose of featuring their product in the best light, which clashes with the experienced editors' goal of building a neutral encyclopedia, leaving everyone involved unhappy. To save this article, the insider needs to quickly provide reliable secondary sources as noted in WP:SOFTWARE. As it stands, none of the references establish the notability of the software. The biased nature of the writing are betrayed by phrases such as "features you would expect" and puffy wording such as "extremely relevant", "highly personalised", "extremely strong" and so on. Without those secondary sources, this is original research by the company's employees. ✤JonHardertalk 03:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment it seems to me that this article is made by a company employee however it also seems they are attempting to enter the product with good intentions. I feel validation of claims need to be provided or at least reworded as the majority of the entry seems to be factual user: whowhatme
comment I have added a link to e-consultancys list of CMS vendors of repute, having reviewed WORKSsitebuilder they are currently writing an article which should provide you with your required secondary source. I am also asking clients to validate the search engine / semantics statements. Additionally Business Link (uk government sponsored org) should be putting us on their site after extensively reviewing our credentials and technology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.108.166.130 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: It's good to see some effort being put into establishing the notability of WORKSsitebuilder. The e-consultancy site is not adequate in my opinion. The material there is basically similar to a press release and it appears that companies add their own information to that site. What is needed (and the time is running short) is something that is clearly produced by a disinterested third party. Has anyone written a critical review of this product? ✤JonHardertalk 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The supplier directory at e-consultancy is indeed supplied by the companies, it is however moderated by e-consultancy staff pre-publication and is subject to strict editorial guidelines. The content managment report 'Web Content Management: the complete guide' is reserached, compliled and edited internally by e-consultancy staff, much like the CMS watch report, which is a trusted impartial resource. E-consultancy is indeed a disinterested third party, they are the leading UK online publisher covering online marketing and services and are of significant repute . You will also note that WORKSsitebuilder is a featured content managment provider at the e-consultancy site, this is again an e-consultancy compiled list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.168.40.60 (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2007 (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.