Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery (second nomination)

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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xcellery (second nomination)

Xcellery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Recreation of advertisment for non-notable software. Artw 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery for what happened to previous less well-formatted version --Henrygb 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Listed on Salesforce.com and featured on Lifehacker.com, thus meeting WP:SOFTWARE's requirement of multiple non-trivial independent mentions. --Pkchan 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Delete Keep Article reads more like an advertisment, lets see if this article can turn up better sources, and better writing. (although this editor dosn't think bad writing is grounds for deletion). Author of the article is also the Founder and CEO of Collaborall violates WP:COI. RiseRobotRise 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup to remove advertisingness. Bucketsofg 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite passes notablity but reads like an ad ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Article is related to software that is in development but needs an expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Article was re-written to fix above complaints. --Rlaemmler 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep by Rewrite to remove advert. Philippe Beaudette 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Article is free of advert. Please indicate otherwise. --Rlaemmler 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Removed wording: free-of-charge and available for subscription. --Rlaemmler 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Who is in charge of accepting the content and removes the deletion part? --Rlaemmler 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • leaning towards delete. I'm not familiar with the websites the sources are from; I'd like to see sources from reputable websites are added, or evidence that those sources are notable. John Vandenberg 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a quite reputable source: Listed on Salesforce.com --Rlaemmler 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Rlaemmler, this process is a mixture of a show of hands and a long winded debate, and you do not need to proceed your comments with "Keep" -- the admin who closes this review is already able to clearly see that you believe the article should be kept. If you think that "Xcellery" is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, I strongly recommend you stop trying to justify its existance here. Instead, go read the verifiability and notability guidelines --- and then focus on improving the article. In regards to your comment that SalesForce is a reputable source: normally it would be, however SalesForce is in the business of selling Xcellery to its users, so using them as a source on this article is only desirable to verify that they are business partners (which is how it is being used currently) -- all other statements from SalesForce are tainted by the sweet smell of crisp greenbacks.
So, the problem is that at the moment this article has a "References" section full of blog posts, which is unacceptable. The only one that looks reasonable is ezinearticles.com, _however_ the author is Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall, maker of Xcellery [1], and to make matters worse is he has only posted one story in the magazine [2], which demonstrates that he was not wearing another more impartial hat when he wrote the article. I dont mind if this references stays as a way to quote the CEO's opinion, but it definitely needs to state that the author is the CEO.
What we need are independent articles in tech magazines; i.e. reviews by people unaffiliated with Collaborall and Xcellery, whose sole objective is to inform their readers. John Vandenberg 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment John, thanks for the information. I'm new to publishing an article on Wikipedia and I try my best to fullfill the required quality standards. I already rewrote the entire article twice trying to remove any smell of spam or advertisement. SalesForce is not selling Xcellery for Collaborall. SalesForce offers a platform called AppExchange which allows 3rd parties to publish applications integrating into SalesForce. In order to be published a quite intense app review must be passed. SalesForce doesn't earn anything and is a partner not a reseller. --Rlaemmler 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Rlaemmler, am I correct in assuming you are Reto Laemmler, CEO of Collaborall? If so, you really need to go read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before doing anything else on Wikipedia.
Back on track, can you see that SalesForce is in the business of selling a service; they have included Xcellery as part of that service, which is a small claim to notability. However as their business profits from the software, any statements from SalesForce about the product need to be taken with a grain or two of salt when used for verifiability. So, we need more credible sources that verify the facts on the article. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Yes I'm Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall. I just took a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Very interesting and I will stop commenting from now on forward. I do respect all your feedback and will simply try to improve the article rather then justify it. --Rlaemmler 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment John, see also the article on Lifehacker.com. The website may look like a blog, but is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry, so should be treated as a trustworthy source. --Pkchan 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for pointing that out, I was merely going on first impression after glancing at each referenced page. The Wikipedia article for Lifehacker.com indicates that the site is leaning towards being an advertising medium, but the fact isnt backed up with a source (I've edited the article to request citations). On further inspection of the lifehacker article, Im convinced that this isnt suitable, as it states "According to the [XCellery] site ...", which indicates that the author has not actually used the software. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 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.