Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oracle Advertising and Customer Experience (CX)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Advertising and Customer Experience (CX) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

There's sources, but they are mostly native advertisement or churnalism. Others are about Oracle's acquisitions but not about this specific suite. Some content may be due for Oracle or other children pages. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the 4 already on the page, ZDNet has published a lot of content about the suite (I saw ZDNet on this "Perennial sources" list): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This one also goes into a lot of detail (note that this source along wtih others talks about the suite with its former name) and doesn't appear to be advertising. Not on the page but also provides more details: this one and this one. And I think the acquisitions are relevant because they were merged to form part of the suite. JlBranst (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT and notability concerns. This is blatantly promotional; all of the references take the form of reporting on Oracle press releases on "new features", and aren't about the product as a whole. Oracle_Cloud#Software_as_a_Service_(SaaS) might be a redirect target. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an interesting point about the reporting on new features, but that’s pretty standard for most reporting on software. Just trying to make sure I understand what’s acceptable for references - are these not enough about the whole product: 1 and 2? Most other examples I’ve found have - what I would interpret to be - weaker references (Capsule (CRM), Microsoft Dynamics CRM, Microsoft Dynamics, Pivotal CRM), so I’m just trying to understand if I was overlooking something. JlBranst (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Responding to the ZDNet perennial sources comment above: being a reliable source is only one aspect of the notability criteria. A topic can be covered in a reliable source and still not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. The type of coverage and what is covered are other factors. Also, a topic must surpass the what is not criteria. In this case, all the sources are overly promotional in an obvious way. This leads to a situation where this topic appears unacceptable because Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. This being a product of Oracle means it also fails several categories of WP:NCORP. I intend to Ivote later after more analysis. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: CX passes WP:PRODUCT. It is one of several of Oracle's SaaS enterprising apps, all of which have their own page, as adding their individual info to Oracle would make that page unwieldy. Per WP:PRODUCT, if a company is notable (as is Oracle), information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. Here are more sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on my above response and this one. A product is not exempt from notability criteria as a separate topic from the company as this is. As stated above, there isn't room in the main article for this. So, just because PRODUCT says this item can be included in that article without necessarily being notable does not equate to fulfilling the criteria for having its own stand alone article. Also, the sources just posted are not independent sources.

The first and third source are paid for articles written by a research and analyst firm hired by Oracle contradicting ORGCRIT. And the author of both articles is heavily affiliated with this research and analyst firm. See the bottoms of both articles. The second source contradicts CORPDEPTH because it is an interview with the Chairman of Oracle. Also, the author is an editorial director at Oracle. The fourth source serves as a promotional platform for this product. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Oracle Corporation is a hefty article and, as identified above, there is no room to merge this article. Per WP:PRESERVE, as the content here is verifiable, it should be retained and not deleted. Thus, this article ought to be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (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.