Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expressor

Expressor

Expressor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. Reference given does not confer notability and do not count as reliable source.

• Part of a spam campaign see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Nov_1#expressor_software

Article was created Hijacked by an WP:SPA account (Consultant for expressor software), with no other edits other than related to Expressor software. Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: article was created by an active editor, User:J mareeswaran, who's been around for years. It seems to have been seized on by a spammer; but the article's creator is not to be blamed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To make matters simpler, I have reverted the article to the state it was in before Casey began his spamming campaign. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ive struck and clarified to fit this version--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the expressor page on December 1 to address the issues raised about objectivity and notability in the AfD of 11/24 -- and modeled my edits very closely on the existing Wikipedia pages of two of the company's competitors, Talend and Informatica, neither of which has been marked AfD. In fact, since I noticed that Talend was using the exact same market description as Informatica, and expressor is a competitor of both companies, I used the same language on the expressor page. My intent was not to spam, but to provide an objective description of this organization, similar to the pages created for this purpose by other similar organizations. It appears in this thread that "non-notable software" has been raised as a reason for the most recent AfD notice, because the "reference given does not confer notability and do not count as reliable sources." FYI, the references included in my edits of 12/1 were several of the leading independent, objective industry analyst firms such as Gartner, Bloor Research and 451 Group, who evaluate companies such as expressor and Talend and Informatica, as well as news coverage of expressor by leading, objective trade magazines, such as Computerworld. After reading the notability guidelines for corporate entries, I concluded these references were acceptable examples of "independent coverage." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sccasey (talk • contribs) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: a data integration suite that enables collaborative, role-based team development, business rule reuse and end-to-end project lifecycle management. In other words, something that has to do with supervising computer programmers. I found only routine financial announcements in general interest publications. The ones I looked at read like they were rehashing press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Smerdis' comments are inaccurate. expressor is a private company -- it does not issue "routine financial announcements" and it has not been covered in "general interest" publications. The coverage references cited in my edits of 12/1 were all in independent, objective, technical publications or made by independent, objective technical industry analysts, and contained significant, in-depth research and analysis, not "re-hashing of press releases." Again, I will cite the independent, secondary sources of Gartner and Computerworld, among others.Sccasey

Go ahead and remove this Other than gartner's magic quadrant(which is a paid report anyway) there is no significant reference to expressor anywhere else. Is it possible to create a tool which will modify all WIKIpedia internal references of expressor to the following external link http://it.toolbox.com/wiki/index.php/Expressor_software ? J mareeswaran (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

restore 12/1 version J Mareeswaran is wrong -- on both counts. First, Gartner's Magic Quadrant is NOT a paid report. For proof, I cite this year's Magic Quadrant for companies in the same market as expressor -- it includes a vendor who trumpets the fact that it is not a Gartner client. I challenge J Mareeswaran to back up his claim with more than an offhand comment/opinion. Regarding references, again, check those I included in my edits of 12/1. They are all significant sources of authority within the admittedly obscure world of ETL/data integration.(24.147.28.111 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC))