Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VMTurbo


 * 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. Majority argument, backed up by evidence, is that the subject has sufficient coverage to be notable. Arguments for deletion are that the article constitutes advertising and that the identified sources are promotional, but these views lack consensus. Michig (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

VMTurbo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of substance as the only links are either press releases, advertorial and PR speak, trivial passing mentions and my searches are also finding the same with none of it actually being convincing; there's essentially nothing else better. SwisterTwister  talk  20:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Well sourced article, covered by Bloomberg, no policies cited for review at AfD.  No evidence of a problem to be considered at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no intentions of interacting or speaking to the user above (Speedy Keep voter) and wish they would not ping or notify me, but I comment regarding " speedy keep" which is not applicable because the article is entirely advertorial to where even the coverage is PR itself (all either about advertising awards, sales financing or funding). SwisterTwister   talk  07:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your reply doesn't cite any policies or provide evidence of a problem. WP:SK applies given that the nomination has not made a deletion argument.  A reliable source remains a reliable source when it talks about advertising awards, financing, and funding.  There is no problem to be resolved here.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested to talk politics here, but your own vote mentions "reliable sources....advertising awards, financing and funding" but these sources are essentially PR themselves and thus cannot be accepted. Regardless if this article can be improved (which it cannot), this is still an advertisement article. SwisterTwister   talk  17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. These sources are not essentially PR (until you can demonstrate that to be true). On the face of it, these awards are third party awards and have to be won by deserving companies. Similarly, nothing in WP:CORP suggests that articles written by third parties on a company's financing and funding are unaccepted. Can you please explain the justification for your continued putting forward of these reasons? -- HighKing ++ 17:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep More than enough to meet criteria for notability. If SwisterTwister believes that the article is advertorial, then the correct course of action is to edit the article, not delete it. -- HighKing ++ 14:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But even the sources themselves are PR. SwisterTwister   talk  15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you back up that broad sweeping statement with some concrete statements? For example, how can you consider the Forbes references as "PR"? They appear to be reliable sources independent of the subject matter. Just because they say positive things doesn't mean you should discount them as PR. I agree with you that it appears that a number of the sources cannot be regarded as "independent of the subject matter" since the articles are essentially recounting details of interviews verbatim originating from VMTurbo. But even after discounting those, more than enough remains. Finally, sometimes information regarding funding is notable. -- HighKing ++ 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: Someone can list sources from Forbes, Wall Street Journal, where ever, but if the article themselves are simply interviews, PR speak (noted in my nomination) that only talk about the funding, partnerships, events and finances, then it's not actually convincing coverage. This would be basically costuming articles with sourced that may seem acceptable but are not actually as informative or substantial as they may be. Also, "funding" being acceptable is actually rare because it usually states the company is still attempting to gain and establish ground; even the highest major companies would not list this as there would not been an existence of such information. Fot example, also, this article hardly had any actual substance since it's majorly about either funding or awards, none of which re actually convincing. Awards, also, such as "Companies to Watch For" and "Listed Starting Companies" essentially suggest and confirm they are not notable if they have been labeled as "Watch For" and "Starting".  SwisterTwister   talk  17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that you have not provided any detail in your response and again use sweeping generalities. Why do you classify all of the references as "only talk about the funding, partnerships, events and finances". It is clear to me that you have not checked the references. For example, the Forbes articles could not be classifed as such. Likewise "The Register" article. Also note that in order to meet the criteria, policy states that the organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The qualification used on content (what I believe you refer to as substance) states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The references attached to this article meet all of the above criteria. In fact, even if *all* of the references were solely concerned with funding, the fact that multiple independent sources published articles is sufficient to meet the criteria of notability.  -- HighKing ++ 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I in fact had but again, look at the sources themselves and even the sources' headlines refer to the funding and financing, even emphasizing the fact there's only sources about this. Also, as for the "significant coverage", news about funding and financing is not actually significant coverage as it's only either the company talking about its own finances or the news sources talking about it. As for the Forbes (which, again, I examined), (1) only has a select number of mentions and paragraphs for the actual company itself and then (2) simply talks about how the company's financing and business activities have changed; even then, we would have still needed better coverage, but there is none, considering the other listed sources are simply about its funding and finances. Note that even The Register, not only has its headline about the finances, but is nothing else convincing apart from that subject itself. Keep to mind, the Business Journals are not ever considered convincing coversge because it's notorious for PR and the company talking about itself (this cannot be considered acceptable or reliable (the latter because of matters involving the company PR). I'll also mention that there's no convincing from any of the listed awards as they are trivial. SwisterTwister   talk  19:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's plain to me the difference between an article *mentioning* funding as part of an overall piece on a company and an article announcing a round of funding as the sole topic. And you are referring to the wrong reference from "The Register" (are you sure you've actually read the references??!) In addition, neither policy nor WP:CORP excludes articles concerning funding - that's simply not part of the criteria. As I stated above even if *all* of the references were solely concerned with funding, the fact that multiple independent sources published articles is sufficient to meet the criteria of notability as listed in guidelines. But I stress again, even excluding the references from blatent PR sources and even excluding any mention of awards (I agree many are entirely not notable), there's enough remaining to still meet the required level of coverage from independent sources. I've made my point, I'll leave this one to the closing admin. -- HighKing ++ 01:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I do not know how one can postulate that when I readily found two Forbes articles that show up doing an intitle: search. — Sam Sailor Talk! 19:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no intentions to start a discussion with this user, but for historical purposes, I'll note that the "corpdepth" is all based from simply news about its funding and other company finances which basically amount to PR. Several users who have mentioned this at AfD include . SwisterTwister   talk  20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For someone who keeps saying that they have no intention of starting "a discussion with this user", why then do you keep responding? You don't automatically have a "right to respond" and then deny the person you are responding to the right to continue the discussion and address any points you might raise. That is not in the spirit of collegic editing. Also, I've fixed the indentation of your replies to make it easy to follow. -- HighKing ++ 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted earlier, I simply listed my notes for the purposes of the AfD itself, not for the specific user. SwisterTwister   talk  17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. E.g., , , . Sources that say positive things about companies are not automatically public relations content by default. Forbes and The Register were not paid by the company to publish these articles. North America1000 05:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hope this can be relisted to allow others to further analyze and examine the listed sources, as there are still concerns here, of which some users are simply citing coverage but the coverage itself is still actually questionable, thus further examinations are needed. SwisterTwister   talk  06:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In ten posts here the nominator has yet to support the nomination viewpoint with identified policies, guidelines, or essays.  This AfD remains eligible for a Speedy Keep.  Although a Keep IMO would be a valid close, a Speedy Keep WP:NPASR would allow the nominator the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in the nomination and resubmit the nomination without prejudice.  See Relisting can be abusive.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm honestly not sure why this user is selecting particular AfD to criticize when I and other users have used this explanation numerous times; if you want one, WP:PROMO is an example. Please do not continue to beat this horse. SwisterTwister   talk  00:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, WP:PROMO... "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are typically unacceptable."  Just below that paragraph is the statement, "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, 'article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.' (see, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The article is an advertisement for their product. It should be deleted regardless of whether or not the company is notable, tho I think it is at best very borderline. The utterly absurd comments that the nomination is defective seem inappropriate: SwisterTwisiter has explained in detail the reasons why the article is promotional. The response was basically IDONTHEARTHAT. Normally, I'd just refer to the nomination as my reason, but I'm explaining it again, because perahps it may lead to understanding. The technology paragraph is advertising: their algorithms may be patentable, but the principles of resource allocation described in the article are not. Including the basic science here is not encyclopedic -- a link would be sufficient. The sort of publication which does include this, because it is self contained, is web pages and advertorial copy. Most of the awards are trivial and if analyzed, offer proof of non-notability: "Most promising" means  might be notable some day; "Vendor to watch", ditto  also "Emerging Vendor." An emerging company is one that has yet to emerge into notability. Including awards such as these serves only the promotional purpose of making the company appear more important. Including executives other than the CEO gratifies their ego, but unless they are separately notable, is just promotion. Listing articles as further reading which are already in the references is promotional--it's the advertising technique of saying the same thing twice. Promotional writing is what the company would like to say about itself. `Encyclopedic writing is what a reader who has heard of the company might want to know. There's a difference.
 * There are two factors which might show notability: The Inc placement, and the exploited patents. But by themselves they are not enough to be more than borderline.
 * As for the sourcing: I've seen a lot of Peter Cohan's work cited in WP, because he does a series of profiles of companies, where he lets the company say whatever they please: that's just providing them an opportunity to advertise. (He also does real journalism, and those can be readily distinguished.) The notices of funding are mere notices, and so are the pseudo-awards. :Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a reason for deletion. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for advertising, we're useless as an encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting that this response comes, without citing any policies, just after a quote that says, "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * appears to be referring to WP:NOTADVERT. I'm of the view for this particular article that it could be copy edited to address any promotional tone, some of which I have performed. At this time, if the Funding section were to be removed, the article would then be non-promotional in nature. North America1000 03:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the evidence that DGG is making a policy based argument. If it were WP:NOTADVERT, I've already quoted from WP:PROMO, which I think is far from the case that DGG's post wants us to accept.  It says, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources..."  We've done that; the topic is verified with independent, third-party sources.  "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."  No dispute there, yet the editors at this AfD are trying to take WP:NOTADVERT to a level that links to reliable sources are themselves violations of WP:NOT; and even then, any such violations would be a content issue, not a deletion issue.  His post also dabbles in a non-policy basis with WP:N, for example, it uses the phrase "proof of non-notability".  Anyone who understands wp:notability knows that there is no such thing.  The policy-based concept to which the post is referring in this instance is called WP:SUSTAINED, but once this policy basis is established, the post's argument dissipates, since this company is mature compared to the intent of WP:SUSTAINED.  The post wants to disallow WP:GNG for this AfD, but once outside the bounds of WP:NOT, any path to define wp:notability is a sufficient path.  So is DGG's post making a WP:IAR argument?  I doubt it, as I think a veil over relevant policy is part of the message, and that an assertion of WP:IAR would improve the msssage.  I think our future as a volunteer community lies in supporting our policies and guidelines, and the future of AfD lies in improving the quality of AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America1000 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep VMTurbo list all the notable awards it has received. If you have a problem with the tone of an article, edit it don't delete it.   D r e a m Focus  03:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am curious to know if this vote above is actually noticing both my own nomination comments and DGG's analysis above, which show these awards are, in fact, by Wikipedia AfD consensus (both past and present) known are trivial as they are only business awards given for starting company, and are essentially PR. SwisterTwister   talk  04:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Forbes magazine is a reliable source. If they think the company is notable enough to mention in their magazine and give that award too, then that counts towards notability.  If you have a link to where consensus was clearly established for every award listed, please post it.  There should be somewhere on Wikipedia listing every award there is, and links to discussions about them, and listing that consensus was about them.  JPMorgan Chase & Co is a legitimate company, so I believe their award would be seen as notable.   D r e a m Focus  04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SwisterTwister - Seriously, that's a pretty insulting comment. Are we supposed to bow down to your and DGG's superiour rights to opinion and wisdom or something? Wikipedia AfD consensus means nothing if it doesn't adhere to policy or isn't even mentioned in guidelines.
 * Let me remind you that there is nothing in the guidelines or policy to suppose two of your assertions made in this AfD to date
 * that reliable third party arms length reporting on funding is not a measure of notability
 * that awards provided by third parties at arms length is not a measure of notability
 * It may be that these reasons were proffered and accepted in other AfD's (and had I seen them I would have argued against such reasons) but that does not make those reasons policy, nor does it give weight to the reasons. WP:CORP states Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products and this appears to be happening here. -- HighKing ++ 17:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the article's sections are "Terminology"; "History"; "Funding" & "Recognition" -- this reads like a company website combined with an investment prospectus. This does not suggest an encyclopedia article to me. Clearly promotional content and weakly sourced to puff pieces such as "Tech Trailblazers Winners 2013". Tech Trailblazers & "JPMorgan Chase Inducts VMTurbo into Hall of Innovation". MarketWatch. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit notice for this discussion states, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements... Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Puff pieces" meaning "these are not WP:RS sources" and the content does not amount to "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the article was copy edited after the !vote above, by the same user, apparently to address these concerns, which removed a large chunk of the article. North America1000 04:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noted that in the comment below. Some of the content/sources were restored, but it's still not convincing. For example, according to IDG / IT Station, VMTurbo was the "top product for Virtualisation Management". The report states that it's "based on product reviews, crowdsourced rankings, and buyer intent data as of January 1, 2016" -- so the methodology of this "report" is unknown, and it could very well be a marketing vehicle / directory. This is great PR / sales tool, but not a suitable source for an encyclopedia. My general conclusion, having observed a number of company/product AfDs is that most of the companies in venture capital stage are just not that notable, unless they've raised roughly $100M+ and/or announced an IPO. K.e.coffman (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me go into a few points. In addition, the propduct history section is filled with technical jargon that only a professional would understand. In addition, the final sentence is written as an attempt to downplay the promotional side of the article, but it isn't well hidden.
 * Keep A hugely noteable virtualisation company, per very extensive coverage and in depth coverage in the industry press. The thoughts of arbritator DGG are always well worth close attention, but so is the analyses of good NorthAmerica1000 and the impossibly cool DreamFocus, who I find more convincing in this discussion. It's invetiable that an article on a company will have some functional overlap with an advert, yet that is no reason to destroy an ariticle unless it's taken to an excess.   To address concerns about advertising, the rescue squad have added some critical content to the article. If any wanted to add more criticism it should be easy to find. Some businessmen feel this company have paid back VMware for their early support by stitching them up, and they don't like how VMTurbo are now partnering with a certain cloud company known for it's tax dodging and for imposing slave labour like conditions across the world. IMO though we now have enough negative coverage for NPOV, though no strong feelings about that as have not reasearched this company extnsively. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this was clearly written by someone connected to the company, there no doubt about that. I asked him on the article talk page to just identify his connection.  It is not written as a proper Wikipedia article, but filled with business jargon.  So it should be rewritten.  But the reliable sources others have already mentioned, do give it significant coverage.   D r e a m Focus  16:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This entire article is promotional at best. Overall, the format of the language is promotional and is written as a “magnet” to potential customers.
 * the Industry recognition is best promotional. Despite being Forbes, the “America's Most Promising Companies list” shows growth but it only does for incubating companies that are currently “no name” companies.

A regular article of a company does not write about its principles to such a large extent in the article. In fact, other notable articles on companies speak of their end products and their usefullness, reliability and success. A completely non-advertising article would not entertain language such as “Applies the principles of supply and demand to abstract virtual data center resources into comodities bought and sold within the environment and perform intelligent workload management”. Just look at other articles. They don't clearly advertise that.

Finally, a precendent must be hard set. This article must be deleted. If this si kept, then who knows what sort of slipslide we will have. Seriously? Who will stop other companies from random lists to publish advertisements on Wikipedia? If kept, Wikipedia will become a glorified version of the classfied section of newspapers or Google ads or even the reviled clickbait on the internet. I clearly oppose it based on the above reasons and the reason to protect wikipedia as an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:57 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC) — 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pruning comment -- I trimmed the article of fluff sources, original research/synthesis and marketing lingo, and there's not much left: one paragraph. I don't believe the article meets CORPDEPTH at this time; I still support deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - just not notable for a stand alone article. The article reads like a press release advertising for their product. Kierzek (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In my !vote at the start of this AfD I mentioned that the topic was "covered by Bloomberg".  Bloomberg has an army of reporters and reliability is essential for their business model.  It has been my experience that coverage by investing.businessweek.com (Bloomberg) is a good indicator of Wikipedia notability.  At 22:41 today, I saw that the Bloomberg link was not in the article so I added it to the "Further reading" section, .  At 23:03, an editor moved this citation to the external links,, and also removed the quote I had provided from the article, with the edit comment "trim".  At 23:22, the citation was removed with the edit comment "trivial", .  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg: I believe the editor refers to this link:
 * The link provides the quick snapshot of the company (more of a directory entry), plus the headlines/briefs of the company's press releases, such as: "VMTurbo, Inc. Presents at 11th Annual Pacific Crest Emerging Technology Summit, Mar-01-2016", "VMTurbo Releases Version 5.3 of Operations Manager" and "VMTurbo Extends QoS Adherence to Control the Full Stack". This seemed trivial to me, but I'm not opposed to this link being re-added to external links. However, this does not amount to significant coverage by Bloomberg, as I see it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The link provides the quick snapshot of the company (more of a directory entry), plus the headlines/briefs of the company's press releases, such as: "VMTurbo, Inc. Presents at 11th Annual Pacific Crest Emerging Technology Summit, Mar-01-2016", "VMTurbo Releases Version 5.3 of Operations Manager" and "VMTurbo Extends QoS Adherence to Control the Full Stack". This seemed trivial to me, but I'm not opposed to this link being re-added to external links. However, this does not amount to significant coverage by Bloomberg, as I see it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG via, , , , . Aust331 (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All of those listed sources are simply trivial, being either about its moving the locations, funding and having "high hopes" to then nothing actually substantial (the first source, as it is, seems like both a PR piece and trivial coverage). Despite no one still seems to accept this, the listed sources are all still trivial and based with finances, there has been consensus at AfD (regardless of who ever said whatever) that that alone is not enough for establishing a convincing and notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  21:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I like those sources. Several of them provide a great deal of significant background coverage about the company. For example, in this article from The Register, the title of the article "VMTurbo trousers $7.5m to bring Adam Smith's hand to more clouds", can be misleading as only providing routine coverage, because it has a routine-style title. But the content is actually substantial and provides significant additional detail and background information about the company. North America1000 13:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the article is really that in-depth, as it's built on an interview with the company executive:


 * "Derek Slayton, vice president of marketing at VMTurbo, tells El Reg that VMTurbo did not need the money, but had the opportunity to nab the cash and accelerate some of its development and sales efforts.


 * This time last year the company had 60 paying customers for its Operations Manager tool; it now has over 350. Revenues tripled last year to $8.5m and are forecast to double this year to $17m.
 * These are company claims and cannot be independently verified as the company is private. Moreso, $8M in revenue is rather trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That figure was reported in 2013 as being applicable for 2012. When Zuckerberg invested in 2015 the author did some calculations (based on VMTurbo's announcements) that VMTurbo did $14m revenues in 2013 and $32m in 2014. The valuation at that time was $500million (very non-trivial). In 2016, a press release stated that they achieved 100%+ revenue growth on the previous year which would put revenues in 2015 at close to $65m. I know there's no independent reporting of these numbers because its a private company, but just thought some clarity on the revenue figure of $8m was in order. -- HighKing ++ 12:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - When you're getting as high-level coverage as "Bloomberg" or "Forbes" on a subject, and you've got concerns about being promotional, that's when you turn to cleanup (even if it needs to be heavy-handed) rather than deletion, because the subject meets the WP:GNG. You're setting the bar far too high if "its just coverage about finances" is the counter-argument here. Its no FA, but it certainly scrapes by "third party coverage by multiple sources". Sergecross73   msg me  20:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Analyzing the listed The Register source even still only finds it simply talk about the company's finances and how jobs work there such as their company positions. Having "A company the size of VMTurbo is what Reisig knows how to grow, and that is what VMTurbo CEO Louis Shipley, who used to be general manager of data center and cloud products at Citrix, is counting on" with a "R" symbol at the end is PR-speak through and through. Also "Operations Manager can manage virtual machines" and "It hired Chris Reisig to be vice president of worldwide sales....Before that, Reisig spent two years at Kiva Systems, a provider of distribution center management software, where sales doubled, and prior to that he was at Endeca (eaten by Oracle last year) for seven years where he ran the sales operation and helped quintuple sales over that time". Who wants to actually know about that and call it substance? .... if it wasn't the company speaking about itself of course. The first few paragraphs are even simply talking from the businesspeople's POV. SwisterTwister   talk  21:10, 8 August 2016 (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.