Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pivotal Tracker

: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 merge to Pivotal Labs. I think the consensus call for the compromise solution of a merge here DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

=[[Pivotal Tracker]]=

:{{la|Pivotal Tracker}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pivotal_Tracker Stats])

:({{Find sources|Pivotal Tracker}})

I do not believe this product has lasting notability. Its references do not rise above the standard noise of a highly saturated market.

The articles creator, {{User|Casey Armstrong}} contested my original prod; this user has a major conflict of interest. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you OSborn for the additional information. I misunderstood some of the information and thought after I added additional 3rd party articles that the proper next step would be removing the Deletion Notice. I do not have a major COI and as I mentioned, all information I've provided is unbiased and cited. I've included articles from sites such as GigaOm and EMC's actual business webpage, along with Google listings. Google even uses the product in question. Please let me know if you have more questions and I'll respond in a timely fashion. If there is a better place to respond to your requests, please let me know. Thanks. Casey Armstrong 23 April 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

::It is very clear from a search of your username on Bing or Google that you have a conflict of interest on this subject. My concern is that the article does not establish that this product is notable -- what sources exist look to be the standard noise for any product in what is a very highly saturated field. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:::What is the "standard noise"? The sources are sufficient under policy. There is no rule regarding fields' levels of saturation. Andrevan@ 00:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::::(I have been busy in real life which resulted in not answering this) Notability policy requires significant coverage, and I don't think that exists here. The sources I've seen look like the standard minor coverage that products in this field seem to receive. OSborn arfcontribs. 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge with Pivotal Labs, a division of EMC Corporation. Notable: [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=%22pivotal+tracker%22] [https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw&authuser=0#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=jxNVihCu7LtC6p6kTQkqjg&cp=9&gs_id=1j&xhr=t&q=pivotal+tracker&pf=p&safe=off&authuser=0&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=pivotal+t&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=738b4b0732b36883] A brief read of WP:COI does not suggest deleting articles created by users with COIs is merited if they are otherwise notable. There is no policy about market saturation as it relates to references, one need only have multiple independent significant references, which it certainly does. Andrevan@ 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Pivotable is established and well known in it's industry. According to various sources Pivotal has been acquired by a Fortune 500 (EMC) but will be run as an independent unit so Pivotal is not a Product of EMC. Doesn't deserve a delete but I do agree with Andrevan that this makes more sense as a merge with Pivotal Labs since it is a Product of theirs.

Chatterboxer (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep with massive rewrite and/or Merge. {{User|Casey Armstrong}} has a clear and obvious COI. He should enjoin himself from any further editing on this subject. The article is also a blatant puff piece which needs to be rewritten from a WP:NPOV. That being said, the program is of sufficient notability to merit an article, as evidenced by a number of independent third-party citations. Perhaps out of scope for this AFD, I don't think there is any justification for a distinct Pivotal Labs article, both because PivotalTracker seems to be their only commercial product and because they no longer exist as a separate company. Full disclosure: I use Pivotal Tracker myself, and I'm also an ex-EMC employee (gone for a couple of years, and in a totally different division). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • :They still exist as a separate unit of EMC much as VMWare does. Andrevan@ 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge & Redirect. I never like articles started and maintained by editors with clear COI. There is some salvagable value here, which calls for a merge. smooth0707 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2012 (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.