Talk:Greenplum

Early comment
This is an ad not an article! Delete it.

Note that at least one sentence in this article, talking about "MPP" and "BI," appears to be directly lifted (or "copied") from Greenplum's own web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.179.226 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed--the fact that this company is represented in such an offensively biased way on Wikipedia does not speak well of the company itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.36.58 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is a 'known issues' section doing in there? I'm gonna delete it; that's for forums, not Wikipedia. JeffDonner (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Greenplum (the company) and Greenplum (the software)
Should details of Greenplum (the software) be separated from this article as this article is mainly for Greenplum (the company)?

Jp harris2008 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say the main problem is the vast amount of substandard sources: The company's own websites, press releases, blogs and the like. If all those sources were weeded out, and the content currently based on them removed, I'd expect many of the details on the software will be gone as well. I rather doubt both software and company are independently notable, so having a single article on both (if at all) seems the way to go. Huon (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two years later, I would agree about the poor sources, but not the independent notability. It is quite typical for a company to come up with a product name different than the company, but if they only have one product before the money runs out, customers conflate the two. The company is long defunct as an independent entity, but worth describing somewhere. Especially now that EMC itself is being absorbed into yet another entity (Dell). But not clear exactly where to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)