Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pivotal Corporation


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pivotal Corporation
Hi - this is a promo article. Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above George Wilson
 * Delete per nom. Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have you done any notability research on this? &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  04:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From its website, there doesn't appear anything notable about this firm. Rama&#39;s Arrow 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The article does needs substantial work. It doesn't state who started Pivotal, when CDC bought them, nor how their products are different than those of competitors, but the answer to that is to flesh out the piece and deglurge it of the puffery, not to delete it. ClairSamoht 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Advertisement, non-notable Alexa ranking of 242,777. Green Giant 04:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete subsidiary of a redlinked corporation. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP.  Creator is a good editor woth lots of history, has anyone notified him? Just zis Guy you know? 10:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I added this article because a lot of other CRM companies had been added to Wikipedia. The company (no I don't work for them but I have worked for several companies that use their products) is a large company and is quite notable in its chosen field. It is a product that is used quite heavily worldwide by many organisations and I feel that it should remain. True it isn't a product that the public as a whole would be aware of but it is heavily used in customer service organisations and many large companies for CRM functionality. Yes someone has turned this into a promo but I do feel that if the mention of this is removed then there are a lot more companies with articles on Wikipedia with considerably less notability that should be removed. Just read their website and check out how many customers use it, how many worldwide offices it has and the like and then tell me it isn't a notable company. Just because most people haven't heard of it doesn't make it non notable. Ben W Bell 11:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn and ad. --Ter e nce Ong 11:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look back to the last edit by myself on the page you will see it wasn't the promo it is now, an anonymous user changed it to what it is today. It can be changed back and not then be a promo. Ben W Bell 12:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn corp, ad.  Dei z io  15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. Software "to help organizations create superior customer experiences": would you buy anything from a software company that can't come up with a more concrete description of what it did?  Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this version. I agree with Ben W Bell, and request all voters here please voice another opinion in light of the information he has provided. Alexa isn't the only test of notability. I was concerned about the non-notability information provided in the initial nomination and now I have done more research it appears to be legitimately notable in it's own way. Unless their website is blatantly lying about the numbers of offices they have set up all round the world. There is obviously still a danger that the article will only be turned into a promo page again. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  09:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am relisting this because I feel that the new information necessitates a re-examination. Admins, feel free to close this within a day or two if clear consensus begins to emerge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * revert and keep (weakly). Given Ben Bell's comments above, I went through the edit history.  The promotional material was mostly added by, and a reverse IP look-up shows that (surprise, surprise) this address comes from 'pivotal.com'.   I'm going to revert it to what I think is the best version (one or two after Ben Bell's).  That is the version we should decide to delete or not.  I'm slightly in favor of keeping it, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Bucketsofg 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused how you can say "per nom" at this stage in the discussion? We've already established that a non-promo version of the article exists and I believe we are now voting on that. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  01:47, 31 March 2006 (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.