Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pimcore (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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pimcore

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

Actually deleted in 2010 but later restored apparently for "attribution"; regardless, nothing here is actually convincing and substantial and my own searches are also not finding better aside from PR and trivial coverage, none of that amounts to being acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage is substantial and convincing. We put a lot of effort in creating an open source software product used by over 80k people (yet primarely in Europe). Just look at the activity and the community at https://github.com/pimcore/pimcore. Now that we have actively cared for this article for the last 6 years, we would like to hear a better reason for deleting this article. Otherwise (and to be fair) almost all articles linked on listing pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_content_management_systems (which is our main category) would have to be deleted. Please be fair. --drietsch (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I will. note I have deleted several articles as it is, I can examine and continue deleting any if necessary. What's not convincing for notability here is essentially that there's still no actual substantial coverage about this. Articles here are a complex thing so we would have needed better to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. We fully understand that this is a complex thing. We promise to improve the article by adding additional references and coverage. --drietsch (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated all 404 reference links and started to add new references. --drietsch (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; this is advertorial material with no substance. There are product descriptions and non-notable minor industry awards. Coverage I'm seeing is trivial or PR like. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep, as software is used world-wide as open-source and this article is relevant for this audience. It's a special interest article. Thanks! --Roland_SBGLMN (talk) 16:25, 02 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable (mostly German-language) sources, including trend.at ("Great interest in Salzburg open source software Pimcore") and Softpedia. Sandstein 08:17, 3 September 2016 (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.