Talk:Aprimo

2011
This article appears to have been written by an employee of a PR company on its behalf. It should be therefore considered just an advertisement for company. Peacock (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: the AbardaroPR version of the page was deleted years ago per WP:CSD as a copyvio of the Aprimo website and was, of course, blatant and unambiguous WP:CSD advertising/promotion. – Athaenara  ✉  19:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, that was the "Welcome to Aprimo™" version created by user at 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC), tagged as a copyvio at 14:00, tagged for deletion as such at 14:38, and deleted per G12 at 14:58.  (That version of the page lasted less than an hour!) – Athaenara  ✉  07:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted a few references that had broken links. Spiderthumb (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Aprimo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115013203/http://www.callcentres.net/CALLCENTRES/LIVE/me.get?site.sectionshow&CALL2142 to http://www.callcentres.net/CALLCENTRES/LIVE/me.get?site.sectionshow&CALL2142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229133630/http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=8099 to http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=8099

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability
At this point, the article is sourced entirely to sources that WP:NCORP notes as "trivial" or to first-party sources, so I'm tagging it for notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (For full disclosure I have a COI with the subject of this article and drafted it at Articles for Creation. I do not intend to directly edit it.) On review of WP:CORPDEPTH, I don't believe the sourcing in this article fall in the realm of trivial coverage it describes. The sources are mostly dedicated articles about the company itself - and not passing mentions, press releases, interviews, or coverage of its products such as reviews. I think the following constitute "multiple qualifying sources" described under the policy: these two articles in the Indianapolis Star and, WTHR-TV , the Penguin Books volume, and the Indianapolis Business Journal . The other sources (e.g. Knack , the Cincinnati Inquirer, and the Times, are shorter, paragraph-length articles, but are used to support specific facts, rather than establish notability. Thalium (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In order, you're listing coverage of IPO, merger, a hiring, a cite that's not available online for me to check, and an article that is paywalled but appears to be coverage of change of ownership and name.... and almost all but the not-available-online cite merely local coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from the sources you aren't able to access, I would respectfully disagree with that description of the others. While an IPO and merger were certainly mentioned in them (in the 2007 and 2013 articles, specifically), I don't believe they could be characterised as routine, IPO articles. The Indianapolis Star article in which the IPO is mentioned, for instance, contains eight paragraphs of coverage unrelated to it. I don't believe that scope of coverage is trivial as set-out in CORPDEPTH, as you had mentioned. However, thank you for your feedback and willingness to discuss it, either way. If you feel this is appropriate for AD, I understand. Thalium (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And now that I've seen chunks of the Penguins book source, which is just them as an example company implementing some adjustments to the promotional program, and it looks like it may not even be a third party source; when the author says "Teradata reduced the risks of assimilating the Aprimo program by applying my six steps to a successful B2B initiative", it sounds as though they may have been a client of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat Gertler (talk • contribs)
 * I approved this at Articles for Creation and, at the point of approval, felt that it was notable. Based on the extent of coverage in RS, I still feel that way. While some of it is WP:ROUTINE, I see enough that isn't to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in the form of multiple instances of coverage spanning a period of years in RS. The typical articles I reject due to WP:REFBOMBing IPO coverage are sourced to articles like this in which it is a few sentences on the offering. I'm not really seeing that here. That said, since I end up declining 99% of the AfC submissions I review I might be overly enthusiastic when I see one that is in better shape than the typical cruft! Chetsford (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll admit to being an inclusionist but coverage over an extended period indicates to me Aprimo is a brand that seems significant in the marketing automation sector. Im my opinion it's likely to survive an AfD.  Issues to me are really more are about article being a neutral point of view.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Deferring to the judgment of others, and with putting some weight on the Further Reading items, I have removed the tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Mismatched article and talk page
This talk page originated from 2010 … the article page from 2018. So previous article history has been lost. Likely we had an redirect to Terradata over a previous article history … but we should have editing the redirect back to an article. There at least some risk of a copy violation but there may have been one already.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
In my despite some edits opinion elements of this article and omissions from this article indicate the article is currently non-neutral and Template:COI should remain in place.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not checked everything carefully, but I've already found a couple instances where the text was making claim beyond what was in the source. There may well be more elements of the article telling the story that the company wanted to be told, rather than what the sources say. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoroughness, Djm-leighpark and Nat Gertler. I'll give it a one-over as well. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My review
I did a sentence-level check: Chetsford (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Aprimo was founded in Indianapolis in 1998 by former executives of Software Artistry, which had recently been purchased by IBM. - this checks to
 * In 2004, it made its first acquisition, buying British software developer Then. - this checks to
 * By 2007, Aprimo had 250 employees - per source this needs to be changed to "about 250 employees"
 * and its clients included Bank of America, Nestle, Warner Brothers, and Toyota. - this checks to this
 * In 2010 the company was acquired by Teradata in a $525 million transaction. - there are two sources that say "will buy"  but the source dates don't indicate the transaction was completed; in fact, this source says the transaction was finalized in 2011  ... we should change the date to 2011 and add the additional source
 * Teradata sold Aprimo in 2016 to Marlin Equity Partners which merged it with Revenew and relocated its headquarters to Chicago. - this checks to this
 * In 2017, Aprimo acquired Belgian company ADAM Software - this checks to this (based on Google Translate)
 * Products / Ops seem to check out; partly based on WP:PRIMARY but essentially non-contentious items that are routinely sourced to PRIMARY for corp articles (i.e. office location, etc.)
 * Nicely done! --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional Points
I have two additional areas of concern:
 * The Further reading links can be judged to be Aprimo marketing. In my opinion it's Aprimo's job to make those easily findable from its own Website.
 * There are perhaps items of interest on the acquisition and sale of the Aprimo by Terradata. While the article promotes the Terradata acquisition price the sale price is omitted.  In fact the  has removed that information from reference titles and specifically omits for US$90 from the citation title : Updated: Teradata Marketing Applications Business Sold for US$90m .  Now if I were cynical ... and I am likely more so than people called Robert, I would say that was clever marketing by Aprimo.  This issue here is this is the sort of information a COI editor might try and avoid whereas a neutral editor might well include it.  And yup .. that was the eye-brow raising edit that scummered off the COI tag I had placed.  Now what else have we missed....Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup... the biggest COI concern is not what they put in, but what they leave out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catches. I took the liberty of making the changes Djm-leighpark recommended, as well as implementing the errors and omissions I found. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Please note I did not recommend the changes you made ... I merely pointed out issues. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. I apologize if I misrepresented you. Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of COI template
Unless anyone objects and there being no non neutral content additions I am reasonably happy from my personal viewpoint for the COI template to be removed after 24 hours. However there remain two issues: I'd also note to people reading this that previous versions of the article contain references that are no longer present that may be useful in expanding the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between the Teradata acquisition price and sale price really needs some expanded explanation.
 * The issue removal of the previous page content and history and attributions and mismatch of talk page. This may have risked a copy violation with lack of attribution, though the likelihood is small and the fault would have lay with a failure to attribute the content copy previously.
 * No objections. Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Since there only seem to be three editors active here and none of us have objected, I've gone ahead and removed the COI template per Djm's comment above. Please feel free to restore it if you feel I've jumped the gun. Chetsford (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC) - On second thought, I'm undoing the removal. I still don't object to removal but can't hurt to wait a bit longer. Chetsford (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@: Due to content dispute which I have just noticed with re-instatement of one the edits I believe the COI template needs to remain in place. I take your actions as an objection. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC) ''(( I Subsequenty apologise for being incorrect in this accusation ... see below))'' Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. Chetsford (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK ... some (or a lot) of my fault here because I have *thought* I had removed the "Rekdal, Andreas (21 December 2016). "Why this Chicago Company Decided to Rebuild its Culture from Scratch" because I judged it non-neutral ... but I had not actually removed it but my sincere belief was I had (and therefore *thought* incorrectly you had removed it). Please WP:TROUT me.  However I still I regard that further reading link as similar to a promotional non independent press release ... Andread Rekdal does not seem to add independent content.  On this basis I have done two edits, one  to remove the COI as their had been no objections, and and independent one subsequently to remove the further reference.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I thought it was an interesting story and I didn't see any indication Andread Rekdal was affiliated with Aprimo. It obviously painted them in a positive light but I'm not sure I agree with the notion that positivity = lack of independence. But it's not a big deal to me either way. Chetsford (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Previous article incarnation
I've requested the previous Aprimo article (Which was a redirect at the time of deletion but which was likely previously an article) which was deleted 05:01, 1 February 2019 deleted page Aprimo (G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move, leaving it to taggers to perform the move) (thank) is restored to my userspace for analysis. It's quite likely there is nothing there but I'd like to take a look.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved the old September 2018 Draft talk page to Talk:Aprimo/COI, a subpage of this talk page, so that its history and content would not be lost. If there is a better way to deal with that, go for it.  – Athaenara  ✉  19:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sale from Teradata and now cloud based
When looking at references (Some now removed) I because under the impression the Teradata retained some on-premise aspects and that Aprimo is now totally cloud-based. From my point of view I am happy for this information to be in the article but it can be difficult to achieve in a neutral and non-promotional way. I am not doing anything about this ... just commenting. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're referring to this which was removed (IMO, correctly) since the citation only claimed one of its products was moved to Azure:
 * In 2017 Aprimo moved its products to SaaS-based solutions running on Microsoft Azure.
 * In response to your suggestion it be restored, I looked for additional sources that would validate the sentence and found this which is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Microsoft, and this  which may be limited RS. However, the sentence seems fairly non-contentious and agnostic so I wouldn't really object if you wanted to put it back in with the corroboration. Go for it! Chetsford (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for this. While I feel it reasonable to point this out for others it does not mean I will edit the article.  I am a volunteer and will edit what I wish to edit.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I meant "go for it" as an indication of my agreement with your suggestion, not a command or order. I'm sorry that I keep seeming to offend you and will try to more carefully construct my comments. Chetsford (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protection ?
Does this article need to be semi-protected against the addition of low-quality sources? An unregistered editor has added low-quality sources twice in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably a little early yet in that regard ... I think we currently have one editor concerned about how the statement of the acquisition of ADAM software has been written. I'd like the head in the noose a little further before I'd go to getting in pulled.   Of course if a COI editor is wanting to discuss a particular issue or objection on talk first I think we'd mostly like to come to an accomodation.  Per the current response at Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 the previous article incarnations seem to have been subject to much non-neutral and promotional which to a degree has been slate cleaned by the current incarnation.  But if it starts being recurrent ... yes I like the suggestion and I think we should seek semi-protection if (possible COI) editors are causing volunteer editors a lot of non-constructive work.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I was thinking the same. I've had to undo the last two IP edits which put me against the 3RR limit. Had there been a third I was considering semi-protection myself. The IP address geolocates to Belgium so I'm assuming it's probably just a line employee at a satellite office who is new to WP and may just not understand how things work. We'll see, I guess. Chetsford (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

edit suggestion / request
Hello, I have two suggested edits.

The first edit is the addition of a second sentence to the lead. The current lead is very short and may not meet the standards of WP:MOSLEAD. The previous second sentence was removed due to WP:SOLUTIONS. I would like to suggest the following alternative which may comply with that.

The second edit is the addition of the following sentence in the "products and services" section which is based on a discussion on this Talk page.

I have a previously declared COI and will not make direct edits to this article. Thanks. Thalium (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will partly implement these edits:
 * The second sentence you suggested for the lede is not inaccurate and does help clarify what the company does, but it needs to be toned down and the buzzwords removed. Phrases like "integrated software products" and "brand experiences" are appropriate for a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article so I'm rewriting it slightly.
 * Insofar as the second edit is concerned, there seemed to have been a consensus already in the previous discussion for inclusion, however, technically we don't have an WP:INDEPENDENT source saying all its software is on the cloud. The one IND source, while not contradicting it, only mentions some software. The newly introduced WP:PRIMARY source establishes the rest of it is, as well. But this seems like a very innocuous thing and, as mentioned, there was no previous objection when it was discussed. Therefore, I'll partly implement this edit by adding the qualification "according to the company".
 * Chetsford (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Other References
Possilble article improvement references Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Restrining order on distributor?
 * Another about the Terradata deal
 * PR about ADAM deal but some content may be usable
 * Doubleclick EMS acquisition

Article neutrality
This incarnation omitted in history the acquistion of (part of DoubleClick) whilst mentioning other acquistions. Per concerns doubleclick may have picked up a negative taint and mention of this on the article may bring that to Aprimo also. I am paranoid but I am concerned that omission may have been deliberate. I am not sure if identification of this potential issue may have been easier if previous history had been available. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Information to be added or removed: Under the "Key People" parameter in the infobox, I recommend the addition of Ed Breault as Chief Marketing Officer. For ease of review / consideration, I have copied the entire infobox (including this revision) below in wikimarkup.

Explanation of issue: Template:Infobox company recommends inclusion of "chief" level officers in the Key People parameter of the infobox References supporting change: The reference is WP:PRIMARY:. I believe this is permissible under WP:PRIMARYCARE which stipulates that "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." Note that I have a previously declared COI with this article. Please let me know of any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Thalium (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-AUG-2019
Spintendo 02:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Hi - a few parts of the article were recently blanked. I'd like to suggest these be restored. I've outlined the content below, and copied the modifications in my sandbox for review. To clarify, these are not new additions to the article, just the restoration of previous content that's been blanked. As previously noted, I have a COI. However, I believe the restoration of this content would be a neutral addition that simply restores the article to readability and appropriate referencing. Thanks for your consideration. Thalium (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Three references were removed from the fourth paragraph. I believe these are RS and support the content of article. They are -
 * 2) In the 'products and services' section several items were removed but the verbs were not changed from plural to singular resulting in some incorrect grammar.
 * 3) The 'operations' section was blanked. Because this contained the references that sourced related infobox parameters, the result is that part of the infobox is now mostly unsourced.

Reply 05-SEP-2019
Thank you for identifying these issues. It would help in correcting them better if you could specifically identify each issue a bit more: Thank you for your help! Regards, Spintendo  12:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Please identify the specific information contained in the fourth paragraph which is unsourced.
 * 2) Please identify the specific verbs in the Products and services section whose tense needs to be corrected.
 * 3) Please identify the specific infobox parameters which are unsourced.
 * Hi -
 * The first group of sources that were blanked were moved from the paragraph titled "Teradata."
 * The phrase "the company's products include" indicates a list will follow, however, with the entire sentence being blanked except the first few words, no list actually follows in the new construction.
 * The headquarters and area served parameters in the infobox are now unsourced with the blanking of the section called "operations" and all of its sources.
 * Thalium (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * #1 and #2 seem fine, there doesn't seem to be a WP:CITEKILL issue that requires the removal of sources; however, on reviewing #3 it doesn't seem the source supports the statement that there is an office in Ghent, etc. While that might be inferred from what was said previously in the article, a more unambiguous reference is required. Chetsford (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)