Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contensis

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contensis

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

Promotion for non-notable product; article by SPA. Sources are just a list of websites of customers. Unable to find any significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gets a lot of google hits, and 8 google news hits. Polarpanda (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of Google hits is irrelevant, and many of the early ones are references to trade shows the company attended, articles published by the company, or directory listings. As far as news, there is one item related to the GMail domain owned by Contensis in the UK that is covered by the press--albeit very lightly. Aside from that one item, I don't see enough coverage to warrant notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The product has a customer base and usage equivalent to almost all of the other CMS vendors that are on WIKI, This is demonstrated by links to very prestigious customers, who would certainly not chose a product without notability. The product has been exhibited at trade shows for almost 10 years and is one of the UK market Leaders. Anyone serious about Content Management, would include Contensis in their list of vendors to explore. Contensis has beaten most of the other vendors listed on WIKI in competitive tender at one point or another. User:RichardC786 9:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's not how notability works. You need press coverage or something like that. Polarpanda (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Click23 (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (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.