Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colligo Contributor (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Walton^talk 11:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colligo Contributor

Colligo Contributor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is basically a relisting. I closed the first AFD of this article but it had very little participation. The creator (who apparently has a conflict of interest, but that alone isn't a reason for deletion) came to me with new evidence, and I did some looking of my own, and there seem to be a few stories about this product [1]. I'm still not really convinced so I'm bringing it back to AFD. I will notify the people from the 1st AFD. --W.marsh 19:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a list of articles and reviews from several publications:
  

Windows IT Pro
CMS Wire
Small Business Technology Mag
Outlook Power
Application Development Trends
eWeek Review
Network World
Backbone Magazine
SearchVB.com
Also covered by analysts such as 451 Group:
451Group
Awards:
Finalist Tech Ed 2007
Case Studies:
Microsoft Case Study on Colligo
AAXICO Case Study
--Colligo 20:26, 10 June 2007

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, while there is sufficient RS for an article, with only 150 ghits I doubt that this product has become notable. John Vandenberg 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• John, please allow me to differ. Colligo Contributor is part of the Colligo for SharePoint product line. Please try "Colligo for SharePoint". You will get 526 ghits. The most notable product in the line, called Colligo Reader, gives 10,100 ghits. Because Colligo Reader is free, it has garnered a tremendous amount of support from SharePoint users. Contributor is the corporate version used mainly by large enterprises, hence more stealthy, but no less notable. Please reconsider your position. -- Colligo.
  • "Colligo for SharePoint" only returns 103 unique hits, and "Colligo Reader" only returns 179 unique hits. There are 50 hits on the Microsoft website, so perhaps an article about Colligo is warranted. The question that needs answering is .. why does this product need to be recorded in an encyclopedia? John Vandenberg 07:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It all started when a consultant contacted us after updating a Wikipedia article on SharePoint. In it he had mentioned us and some of the alternative solutions for taking SharePoint offline. I noted that he had prepared a companion article on Sharepoint Offline Synchronization Comparison. In it, he had linked to a Wikipedia article on Microsoft Office Groove. A great product no doubt, but not as notable for offline SharePoint applications. For example, try googling Offline SharePoint and see who dominates the first page. I'd also point out that offline access to web applications like sharePoint and the Google Apps is heating up today. Heck, even Google Gears has an article, and it's still in Beta! -- Colligo.
    • Question I'd really like to know how you made those google search numbers so low. I click on your link and it shows the low number you site, but all I have to do is click "search" and I come up with the higher numbers sited by Colligo. When I did the search myself (in quotations), I got basically the same numbers as Colligo. - T-75|talk|contribs 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Google removes duplicates as you travel through the list of results. i.e. the number of hits will become more accurate when you ask google for hits further away from the first 20. John Vandenberg 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Comment'Keep I accept full reviews in eweek and similar well-regarded trade publications as notable, but it does not appear that the one in eweek was more than a paragraph. I have not analyzed the others. Anyway, it's the quality of the items found as ghits, andwhat they say, not the number. DGG 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) It is a full review & sufficient for notability.DGG 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment DGG, there IS a full review in eWeek. The link is at the bottom of the article cited above. It's a three page review. -- Colligo

• Keep WP:N is a guideline based on WP:V. In order for a subjec to be "notable" enough to have an article they should meet the standards of WP:V. This article meets those standards. - T-75|talk|contribs 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  However, this article isnt written based on those sources. We could reduce the article to a stub because we know there are a few reliable sources, but as the article is written by the company, there is little to gain from doing so. John Vandenberg 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me the contributor has been honest about his affiliation with the company and that he is willing to work with other editors to make sure the article meets wikipedia guidelines. I understand the editor of the article probably wrote the article based off of his own knowledge, but if the info in the article can be sourced to the sources provided, I don't see how that makes a problem. Besides, the article isn't much more than a stub now, so it couldn't be made one. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to have some basic notability. Further, while the article may have been written by the company, they wrote it well, and I only see a couple minorly questionable sentences. While editors are discouraged from editing articles for which they have a conflict of interest, what they write should be allowed to stand on its own merit. Someguy1221 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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.