Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM WebSphere
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 keep. Sr13 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] IBM WebSphere
Another software neologism, but unless they really have invented crystal ball, I suspect this may be non-notable product release. IBM is well known of course, but this list of a product components & their attributes should be deleted because it appears to be a double helping of Spam. --Gavin Collins 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete- a product catalog does not qualify as encyclopedic information. The existence of this brand would be worth a sentence in the IBM article or one of its subarticles, but not more. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)- OK, I am changing to Keep as a product family, but the article definitely needs improvement: a) Non-trivial independent sources need to be added in order to establish notability (separate from the application server); b) the product catalog, i.e. the mere listing of (usually non-notable) products on this page, should be replaced with encyclopedic content. --B. Wolterding 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Very strong keep, this is a notable software product with 1.7 millions ghits, 4.5 thousand scholar hits, 186 news hits and 643 book hits. If every word of this article cant be verified somewhere amoungst those sources, I'll eat my hat. John Vandenberg 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a misunderstanding. The product you're referring to is IBM WebSphere Application Server, and it is notable for sure (and has its own article). --B. Wolterding 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, the article being proposed for deletion is a "platform", and the application server is no longer a major reason for its notability. On each of my searches you can add -"application server" and still receive a large number of results. This would be comparable to deleting Windows Vista simply because its technology components such as WinFS and WinFX have articles (bear in mind that people do not buy "Vista", they buy and "edition" which contains a set of features). Or deleting Oracle E-Business Suite or Oracle Fusion Middleware because they are made up of other components. "WebSphere" is not a catalog; it is an IBM brand and the name of a division of IBM that develops and maintains that platform (similar to the Lotus and Rational divisions) which contains a long list of products that are kept in step with each other and are integrated into each other. A disambig page is not appropriate as it would not mention any of the brand/division aspect of WebSphere. John Vandenberg 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a misunderstanding. The product you're referring to is IBM WebSphere Application Server, and it is notable for sure (and has its own article). --B. Wolterding 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Disambig Obviously, some of the articles linked there are of note, but otherwise that's er... ibmcrufty for lack of better terms. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The IBM WebSphere is a very notable product family, like Oracle Fusion Middleware or Microsoft Windows Kmorozov 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as an IT expert I can assure that this article is relevant, encyclopedic and accurate. David 12:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a major, major player in J2EE platforms and is the backbone of thousands of websites and enterprise applications. It's also been around for many years now; it's not new. Capmango 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Is this just anti-IBM backlash or something? This is a very relevant product family, whether you think it's current or not is not relevant. Historical or modern, many people are interested from a technical and lay perspective in the platform.Randomjohn 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The point is: Notability should not be established by just stating "it's notable", but by citing independent sources. These are missing, so the article can easily generate the impression that the subject is not notable. --B. Wolterding 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not having sources is a problem, but that doesnt make this article bad. We are all busy fixing things, and deleting articles oft makes more work than it solves. Going back to Randomjohn's comment, there is an anti-enterprise backlash on Wikipedia; notable software that many people havent heard of is often sent to Afd. This isnt a critism of the nominator either; I have recently sent one to Afd and was surprised that it got a second hearing and resulted in a keep. John Vandenberg 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The point is: Notability should not be established by just stating "it's notable", but by citing independent sources. These are missing, so the article can easily generate the impression that the subject is not notable. --B. Wolterding 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Capmango. --Karnesky 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This middleware is of relevance to enterprise software integration. It is notable and of interest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.96.9 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 June 2007
- 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.
