Talk:Stellent

Is it intended for Wikipedia to have entries for commercial enterprises? If so, fine. But I'm wondering where the borderline is between promotion and encyclopedic information.

I agree but microsoft is here also.

Microsoft is notable and will have historical impact. This is just some random dip-shit company. I'm going to put this page up for deletion. goofyheadedpunk 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to the revision of 10 August 2006 by Dkuntze (talk · contribs) because the material added by 12.40.184.2 (talk · contribs) was copied directly from the company's annual report[1] which I presume is a copyright violation. In addition, these appear to be self-promoting edits because the address 12.40.184.2 resolves to Stellant itself. JonHarder 15:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Stellent was purchased by Oracle on November 2nd, 2006. Assuming the sale is approved by the SEC, this page can probably be deleted in a month or two.--Bex 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Given that this company is now part of Oracle, I think it would be a good idea to merge it. There's very little content in the article so the merge should be pretty straightforward. This could then provide some history rather than standing alone. JamminBen 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support the merge, given the content of this article.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I support a merge/delete too. Can anyone help with how to do this? Is it a case of adding relevant info to the Oracle page and then renominating this article for deletion? Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Best way would be to merge content into the Oracle article, then change this to a redirect to that article. There's no need to delete this article - anyone coming here would be redirected to the article where the content has been moved to.--Michig (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michig, I'm about to AfD this article for a number of reasons, but the main one being that there's no citations or references as to it's notability. Because the company no longer exists, talking about Stellant makes no sense, as it's now owned by Oracle, and it's unlikely that any (new) notability references are going to come along. Bardcom (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing leads to notability... first, there are textbooks containing the name "Stellent," and in the Enterprise COntent Management industry it's still called "Stellent" by most practitioners. One thing that always bugs me about when big companies gobble small companies, is that they don't leave a paper trail of name changes... I'd like this page to stay up and not be merged.--Bex (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I deleted the content that looked like an ad... and added a few more external links. I'm not sure if the page should be any bigger than it already is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bex (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone has reviewed their products or written some book on how to use their product. That may establish notability, but without more reliable third party sourced content, the article should be merged.Dethlock99 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What kind of third party sourced content? You mean about the product line, or about the merger? I found articles from cnet, eweek, and infoworld about the acquisition... both eweek and infoworld also have articles about Stellent prior to the acquisition.--Bex (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake! I thought the discussion was to merge with Oracle, and not Oracle Fusion Middleware. I will 100% agree with the latter, provided that the word "Stellent" remains in the merged document (for historical reasons).

Just to be clear, I now fully support a merger... provided that the word "Stellent" appears somewhere in the merged document on Oracle fusion middleware. --Bex (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important that someone searching for "Stellent" can find this page. I think it would not occur to most people to browse "Oracle Fusion Middleware" for content server software. "Oracle" now means well over a hundred software products. User:CousinJohn

I agree with CousinJohn. There's not much here now, but it was a significant company and the resulting technology has wide deployment (much more than people realize I suspect). It would be good to record more of the corporate history here along with some of the technological differentiators as much of it would otherwise be lost in Oracle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amackenthun (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)