Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appirio


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Appirio

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was created by employee of article subject, which is not allowed by WP policies. See WP:SOAPBOX WP:COI Phearson (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination rationale is incorrect; COI editing is discouraged, but most definitely not against policy. The majority of the article is neutral and merely factual, and anything else ("Appirio has helped over 180 leading enterprises" is about as bad as it gets) can be cleaned up. I am finding independent references to the company (eg ZDnet and InfoWorld ) to indicate notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep – There appears to be reliable sources to support the article's notability. Not sure how the creation of an article by a COI is grounds for deletion unless the article qualifies under WP:SPAM or some other issue.  Phearson, can you please help me understand your rational?  ttonyb  (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a particularly tough stance regarding editors editing on behalf of their employers. See WP:PEW. The editor in question cannot possibly be impartial when creating this article. For example, I recently called out AkankshaG for creating puff articles for Ciplex (See AfD) and Vector Marketing, and the articles were deleted and/or reverted with some prolific meat-puppeting in unrelated articles. Now, I'm not opposed to having the article included into Wikipedia, provided that it is cleaned up and edited by editors not associated with the company. Being that I am not particularly familiar with this company, and not knowing other editors with knowledge of the subject, I opted for deletion. I was also hoping people would take notice and edit, before the general public reads the article. Phearson (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – First of all, I applaud your stance on WP:PEW; however, I don't necessarily see this as an example. Assumming good faith, I see this as an attempt by Spartovi to add an article about the company he/she works at.  Alright, call me simple, but I have no proof of anything else.  As you are aware, the standard for inclusion into Wikipedia notability   based on  reliable sources.  Not if the article was created by a WP:COI.  I removed CSD you originally placed on the article since the reasoning was invalid for a CSD.  I also see your reasoning for opening a AfD as invalid.  The article appears to have valid reliable sources that support notability.  My best to you.  ttonyb  (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with  ttonyb . Yes, if an article was created by a WP:COI, then it should have all the biased and promotional content removed, but that, in itself, does not necessarily justify deletion. It does, in this case, pass WP:ORG with significant enough coverage by reliable, secondary sources. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ttonyb1 makes it quite obvious that this article is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I realize I am sailing against the stream here, but the conflict of interest is pretty obvious in the prose, which makes this unambiguous advertising: a Cloud Computing company that offers technology and professional services to help enterprise companies accelerate their adoption of public cloud applications and platforms.  Moreover, assuming the references found by User:Ttonyb1 are the best there are, one is based on an announcement of survey results about "cloud computing"; the other reports on a promise made by the business that its services will save them money.  And having read both those stories and the article itself, I still have only the faintest inkling of what this business makes or does.  And nothing about it suggests that this business has had a significant impact on history, technology, or culture of the sort that leads to long term historical notability.  Indeed, the article itself reminds us of one of the reasons why this kind of business is often quite ephemeral and needs more than this has to support a separate article: The lack of a centralized, in-house computing datacenter means that Appirio can largely operate as a virtual company, with access to business systems requiring only a computer an an internet connection. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've waited for a while to avoid inappropriately posting or influencing in this AfD discussion. I am the original creator of the Appirio article.  I am a simply an Appirio employee, not a business owner.  I have no other reason for wanting to add this article other than I believe it adds value and that the company has reached a maturity standpoint (5 years, 200 employees, notability, significant contribution to it's market) to warrant it's addition here.  This is the first article I've added.  Ttonyb1 above has it correct, and while I understand the need for paranoia about business articles such as this, you can research my background from my user page if you want to verify who I am.  If you return to the earliest versions of the article, there are a few examples of prose that can be construed as being written in a non-neutral manner.  I've done my best to edit any such lines to fit within standards, as have other editors.  And the feedback and changes are most appreciated.  The challenge of writing an article, about a business, that's neutral and referenced, yet still explains what the company does without seeming promotional, is trying.  I have since updated the introductory line to address this: Appirio Inc. is a Cloud Computing company that offers technology and professional services to help enterprise companies adopt public cloud applications and platforms. This involves, but is not exlusive to, implementing, building and managing Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) technologies using Salesforce.com, Google Apps, Workday and Amazon.com for mid-size and large companies.  And do note, it is impossible to describe a business without claiming it's advertising.  The article I used to model the Appirio article on was this article on Eloqua - the similarities are evident - and I picked that article due to the fact that it was concise, descriptive, and accepted.  I'll definitely admit that what Appirio does is complex and can be confusing, but it's by no means trivial.  Explaining that in a way that meets the scrutiny the article has faced has been challenging, but I intend on working on it, and soliciting assistance from the community in doing so. For now, the article is covered neutrally and independently verifiable through reliable sources. I would like to also note that Amazon.com is a virtual company and clearly not ephemeral, that should have no bearing on notability.  Thank you. Spartovi (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is sufficient WP:CORP through non-trivial WP:RS coverage. The tone & language is a bit marketese, but the article can be edited & improved in my view. Midlakewinter (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.