Talk:Ipanema Technologies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I would like to make the proposed changes below[edit]

DianneDianneDianne (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ipanema Page is several years out of date, making the information now factually inaccurate. I would like to make the proposed edits below. I acknowledge my conflict of interest in that I am working for Ipanema Technologies on a media front. Yet the information below is all linked externally, with an emphasis on neutrality.

I am going to cross post this to the Wikipedia Companies page as well.

Please let me know if it looks ok.

Evaluating the references of the proposed edits:
1. The datachain is a reprint of a company press release. Fails WP:RS.
2. Unfamiliar with this source. Reads like a verbatim reprint of a company press release. Fails WP:RS
3. Unable to confirm its reliability. Feels like a whitepaper republishing site.
4. Top line disclaimer "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.". Fails WP:RS
5. Reads like a verbatim reprint of a company press release.
6. National publication, does not read like a press release, Ipanema Technologies gets a passing mention as a "new kid on the block" at the 2013 Interop Las Vegas in May, 2013. This is a reliable source, but the article is not sufficient on its own to establish notability.
7. Same as #3
8. Same as #3
9. Looks like it requires a registration to view, but scroll down and you can read the actual article, which reads like a verbatim reprint of a company press release. Scroll all to the bottom and click "Media Kit" and this site reveals itself to be a marketing tool, not an actual news site.
10. same as #5
11. same as #5
12. Company website, self-published, fails WP:RS
13. Click on "about us" gives us "BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT champions the global IT profession and the interests of individuals engaged in that profession for the benefit of all.". Not an independent, reliable source.
14. Same as #3
15. Same as #4
16. Same as #5
17. Click "about us" at the bottom gives us "With its more than 40 sites across Europe, NetMediaEurope is the leading European B2B sales house to target the IT professional audience and market segment.". Marketing site, fails WP:RS
18. In French. Google tranlation is choppy, but it looks like company-generated content.
19. Headline: "Orange is a global service provider partner of Ipanema". Not unrelated, fails WP:RS.
20. A quick glance at the first three paragraphs shows that this site does not place a high value on proofreading. Scroll down to "about" on the left-hand side at the bottom, then read through and pick up gems like "APMdigest accepts contributed feature articles on APM, BSM, ITSM and all related IT performance monitoring and management topics." and "All vendors in APM, BSM, ITSM and related market spaces are welcome to blog on the Vendor Forum. APMdigest Gold Sponsors are eligible to open up to 4 blogging accounts in the Vendor Forum. APMdigest Silver Sponsors are eligible for 2 accounts. Non-sponsors are allowed one account per company.". Marketing site, fails WP:RS
21. Byline "ENP Newswire". Google that term, get Text: ENP Newswire is a global press release distribution service that allows companies to distribute their news both via the world's largest news agencies and directly to individual journalists.. Fails WP:RS. Sigh. I'm starting to detect a pattern here.
22. Is anybody still reading this far? I quit.
I spent so much time digging looking for hope in this article, that Wikipedia logged me out while I was posting my edit. Not only does this proposed edit fail the minimal standards for reliable sources, but I cannot see why this article has survived as long as it has given its clear failure to meet WP:CORP guidelines. My suggestion is that the article be submitted to WP:AFD and ultimately removed from Wikipedia, but I will contact the COI editor and urge him or her to salvage the article. There is no rush. Any other uninvolved editors are encouraged to speak up if I've missed something. Neil916 (Talk) 10:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Good overview Neil916; this is clearly a promotional rewrite being requested that has no place on Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Ipanema edits following feedback[edit]

Following the feedback noted below, we would like to make the following changes to the Ipanema page. They are very neutral and use high-level, respectable sources. Does this look about right? It starts now:

DianneDianneDianne (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but this really isn't the kind of material we usually include in a Wikipedia page. For example, including social media links as external links is very rarely considered acceptable. We don't usually list competitors, but only include them if there is some substantive analysis in the sources comparing the companies and their products. We also don't usually list partners and competitors, unless there is some critical analysis. Generally speaking we are most interested in corporate history than these aspects.
What I would suggest is taking a look at Featured Articles from WikiProject Companies (see here) Holden and NeXT looks like reasonable examples (see how it's mostly focused on history as oppose to a fact-sheet format). CorporateM (Talk) 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)