Talk:Spring (company)

Untitled
I am going to mark this article db-spam, its written like an advertisement with outrageous claims like de-facto standard without any references or justification given. Any reasons why this article should not be deleted?

Leanguy (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A speedy might be a bit much for an article that has been around for a while and which has been edited quite a bit. Maybe an AfD instead, where it can be discussed? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - made few tweaks in the text to remove the claims that can not be backed up - I think the newly added section on Tomcat is blatant advertisement - that needs to go Leanguy (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the issues in the flag have been addressed a some subsequent point. SpringSource is a VMware division with a grabbag of products, named after the most important one -- and the article is reflective of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.153.219 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Can the "reads like an advertisement" banner be removed now? Is the text sufficiently neutral? If not, what else needs changing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.47.85 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

References removed
The big rewrite on June 7 2010 removed the only three third-party references. The text now excludes any of the prior criticisms, and contains unsubstantiated glowing characterizations about the company, now including a direct link in the text to a commercial partner.

Should we go back to the prior text and continue to trim the adverts? --NealMcB (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, most definitely. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So SpringSource is basically just a bullshit cost on top of free stuff? Ok, just checking 72.75.113.52 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected
I have redirected the article. Presently, it appears that the subject fails the notability guidelines. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  23:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverting. Has notability. I find sources on the New York Times' IT blog, The Register, and others. The article lacks such citations, but that's a different problem. I'm all for merging into VMWare. But the redirect is no good. It simply loses any information on SpringSource, and creates an awkward SpringSource "self-link" in the VMWare article. Dovid (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Wiki Consumer
I recently encountered SpringSource and product suite and got confused about the commercial labeling around it. I could not make heads or tails of vFabric, Pivotal, and the VMWare association. This article as it stands cleared up a lot of my confusion. To me it doesn't read as an advertisement anymore, just as the timeline that I was looking for. If anything, it could use a few more links to document acquisitions, mergers and spin-offs. I'm happy with the lack of citations, considering the typical language of the announcements involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:97C0:1:A436:E55C:1A88:B02E (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)