From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion


This article was nominated for deletion on January 9 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Other Projects Based on Compiere[edit]

Apart from Adempiere what other projects are based on Compiere? Gioto (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Posterita is retail Web pos and it is using Adempiere/compiere architecture to provide retail front end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre Tsang (talkcontribs) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PostgreSQL doesn't support stored procedures[edit]

Anyone who thinks that PostgreSQL doesn't support stored procedures should go read the documentation. Not only does it support them, it supports them in multiple programming languages and as triggers or constraints for most SQL operations.

Removed new material[edit]

Several paragraphs of new material were recently added by user Red1 D Oon. The material can be seen in this diff. I hate to do it because there's good information in there, but I reverted this material for the following reasons:

  • It's unsourced.
  • It makes some statements that could be seen as in rather blatant violation of WP:NPOV -- "The only possible competition it seems, is from itself", etc. Those statements could be made acceptable if they were credited to particular sources, and if a reasonable attempt was made to find criticisms to present a balanced viewpoint to the reader. But in its current unsourced form, it comes across as a statement of opinion of Wikipedia itself, and that's not acceptable.
  • It includes a very prominent plug for an external site, It seems very likely that Red1 D Oon is the owner of this site. That immediately raises red flags under numerous policies -- No original research and Vanity guidelines: Citing oneself most of all. Kickaha Ota 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Reading back what i wrote for Compiere, yes i admit i did cite sources under my care at the bottom, and if that is against policy then i don't mind it be reverted. But i wonder if the rest which are not to my vanity nor interest can be published as there wont be any challenge as to non-source. I am merely stating careful facts and hopefully other source reference can counter, but i do not see how, because we ourselves are pioneer independent users of Compiere and vantagely knows for sure the contextutal history. Of course again we cannot site own opinions which are published in many prominent locations in the forums, and have received acceptance by the community. But been made a user-community leader puts my activism in a catch-22 spot. The only solution is for others to review those points and publish back of what the leader of the community here insist as history i.e. "Compiere is a first mover in its class..", FWIW - Red1 D Oon 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff link violation?[edit]

As the contributor who added the ==Adempiere spin-off== section, which includes a link to the forums, I'm now concerned that the link is in direct violation of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 10. Does anyone more wikiniscient than I have a suggestion on how to correct this situation without creating the need for a {{fact}} tag? --Donperk 19:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say the link is okay, since this is the "original" source to verify the given claim. The rule says Links normally to be avoided and here is in my opinion an exception. --S.K. 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Compiere, Inc. acquired by Consona[edit]

Posted today: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion[edit]

I removed nominated for deletion template. The article may have problems, but it still provides useful information. Its not an imaginary product! --Alan (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So it exists, and is useful. This does not imply meeting the inclusion criteria. The article is still eligible for an WP:AFD nomination. Keφr (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

unsupported assertion[edit]

"Compiere encompasses ERP functionality, but in order to avoid the duplication of information and the need for synchronization, it's organized in a different way."

I'm not aware of these issues, so it appears to be salving a non-existent problem. SAP certainly doesn't have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)