Talk:Revive Adserver

message: Its use by Dreamhost for inclusion as an option for all domains in their popular service gives it some notability, though that alone isn't acase for inclusion yo Wikipedia. --Mystalic (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: "...delivers world-class ad serving functionality..." -> Somebody copy the on-site-description and added it as independent informations.
Jschoder (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisment

message: tedder (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, incorporated. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref for expansion 

message: Before my most recent edit it would appear OpenX is primarily an open source program, but it seems to be primarily a company, with other offerings. Actually it still appears that way, my edit is just a start. It seems the article should be largely rewritten focus on the company. See SugarCRM for an analogous situation. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. I was thinking about hacking it into OpenX (company) and OpenX (software), but your solution is better. I don't think there are articles for phpAds or phpAdsNew, it seems weird that there would be an article focusing on the OpenX software bit. tedder (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In general I would not object, but I have two concerns. First, at the moment the sentence starting with "OpenX, a Pasadena, California based company..." is inappropriate. The article is still about the software, not the company. I was tempted to simply remove it when I saw the discussion here. I think that until this change of focus is decided, it should be removed. Second, can you show significant coverage for the company in reliable, independent secondary sources? If not, you are risking the removal of the article entirely. While most editors will leave an article about an open source software alone even with minimal notability, this is not the case for companies. --Muhandes (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of sources for OpenX (the company). Here's a quick search, showing non-press-release coverage in 2008, 2009, and (of course) 2011. tedder (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having concerns does not mean I object. If you think it will stand, go for it. --Muhandes (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

text: This was not what was discussed. The suggestion Mike Linksvayer made was to change the focus of this article, not to make another. The software is still OpenX's main product, and there is little need for two articles. By the way, even if you insist on doing things this way, per WP:TWODABS there really is no need for a dab page. Why not have the company (or the software, I don't care) as the primary topic with a hatnote?  --Muhandes (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it isn't what was discussed, it was a bold change. The software belongs on the company article in summary style. I chose to dab both articles because I didn't want to get in a fuss about what is primary. I'd prefer the company to be primary, since that's what most reliable references discuss- thoughts? tedder (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. --Muhandes (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change article subject to OpenX company, mention software? 

message: This software is not notable outside of OpenX (company), as previously noted by @Mike Linksvayer, @tedder and @Muhandes Therefore I propose a merger of this article into the OpenX (company) article. Thoughts? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with OpenX (company)