Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebMethods

WebMethods

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

10+ years of being tagged with notability and advertising issues; no evidence it meets WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE fails to find anything other than press releases and business-as-usual entries. Acquired a while ago by Software AG which makes for a valid redirect target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the claims are true they may be significant, if the claims are hyped, and they may be, the case for keep is far less. The name triggers a bell but it may be a different entity that is ringing it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Software AG. This was a big deal in the Internet bubble, although some readers of Wikipedia might not be old enough to remember, some of us do! There were records of "largest IPO to date" every couple weeks, but it is a bit of history. We can probably save the article, but do not want to put in the time if you are going to delete it. Product name seems to still be around. Also of course related are webMethods Integration Server and webMethods Flow and webMethods Developer and SAP Business Connector which need to be either deleted or merged. A combined article on the company, its record-setting (for a brief time) IPO, and its products in neutral tone would be better in my opinion, than just deleting this one. W Nowicki (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can improve it, go ahead. We can always merge any useful parts before deleting if the end vote shapes into a delete. The thing is, in the current form, it is not ready for the mainspace (we could also draftify it in your userspace, that's another option). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It was a big deal in it's time and I think clearly meets WP:NCOMPANY. The notability notice should also be removed. The WP:PROMO issues, IMO can be fixed with a quick rewrite. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page survives, can someone please specify exactly what the issues are with WP:PROMO. Other than a few issues with tone, I don't see any real problems. The huge changes in it's stock price and the acquisitions it made are a large part of what makes it notable, not promo. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -easily meets WP:NCOMPANY -there are more than a dozen references in the article from independent reliable source such as eWeek and The Wall Street Journal that discuss the company, its products and its acquisitions Inf-in MD (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the tags were added in 2010, and quite a bit of improvement has been done since then. I am biased, since as noted above, spent several recent days working on replacing the promos with neutral language paraphrased from more reliable and independent sources. It still could use more work, but any deletion-worthy issues should be taken care of, unless someone points out specifics that remain. My propose is to delete or merge the four product articles I mentioned above into this one, since those are more clearly just product guides, with no independent sources at all. W Nowicki (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I just removed the promo banner from the article because I couldn't see them, and you claim that they did exist at one point and you fixed it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]