Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siemens PLM Software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Siemens PLM Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: WP:SK. The topic is notable. In fact, it was the topic of an article today in Fortune: "Chrysler's engineering software shift: The automaker is embracing engineering software from Siemens where it once used Dassault. A case of open vs. closed?" As stated here, Siemens PLM is "one of the biggest suppliers in the PLM market", which was purchased in 2007 for $3.5 billion. Yes, the article needs cleanup and references, but it appears salvagable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin W Smith (talk • contribs) 20:42, June 23, 2010
- The current article needs more sources to prove notability. If sources like these were added then I would agree that we should keep the article. Currently it talks mostly about its products with a bit of history that is all unsourced or self-sourced. As of now I believe its unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tootitnbootit (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again. It says, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.". Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that, but when you type in the name in Google it only shows press releases. Which are not considered necessary sources by WP:COMPANY. The Forbes article you showed does not show up in the search. That article would be a correct source of notability.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to add that you found something that I didnt. Which is why this discussion board is in place, correct? I agree, if there is a source like Forbes that this article should stay.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again. It says, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.". Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article needs more sources to prove notability. If sources like these were added then I would agree that we should keep the article. Currently it talks mostly about its products with a bit of history that is all unsourced or self-sourced. As of now I believe its unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tootitnbootit (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith talk/stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I found this article extremely useful and informative when searching for background info about this company just now. To me, it doesn't read like an advertisement at all, most of the content concerns the company's history, and it is similar to articles I've read about other companies. I have no links to or interest in this company or its competitors.Kiwi Jake (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First let me say that I am employed by Siemens and used to work in the PLM Software business unit (I am now in the Industry Automation division responsible for PL and 3 other business units). If the main issue is references, I am sure we can find them, but I do need your advice: we have specifically avoided doind anything to any of our wikiepdia articles. We let them be whatever the community outside of Siemens PLM Software decides they should be. If we have the references, what is the right way to add them without creating the perception that we are tampering with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy on this is covered (officially) by WP:COI or (unofficially) by WP:EXPERT. In short, if you have a potential conflict-of-interest (COI) with content on wikipedia (e.g., an article about you, or a company you work for), you should generally specify these potential COIs on your talk page. And then, when you see changes that should be made to articles for which you may have a COI, you should recommend your change on the article's talk page. In this case, your talk page is User talk:Aakelley, and the article's talk page is Talk:Siemens PLM Software. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew about the use of the article's talk page for COIs, but had not read / heard about the specification of COIs on your personal talk page. I will add that now and add the references to the Siemens PLM Article talk page once I compile them. Thanks for the pointers.Aakelley (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it wrong; declaring your potential COI should probably be on your user page, but not necessarily your user talk page. WP:COI makes it fairly clear. In any case, I'm glad I could help. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew about the use of the article's talk page for COIs, but had not read / heard about the specification of COIs on your personal talk page. I will add that now and add the references to the Siemens PLM Article talk page once I compile them. Thanks for the pointers.Aakelley (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy on this is covered (officially) by WP:COI or (unofficially) by WP:EXPERT. In short, if you have a potential conflict-of-interest (COI) with content on wikipedia (e.g., an article about you, or a company you work for), you should generally specify these potential COIs on your talk page. And then, when you see changes that should be made to articles for which you may have a COI, you should recommend your change on the article's talk page. In this case, your talk page is User talk:Aakelley, and the article's talk page is Talk:Siemens PLM Software. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - only argument for deletion seems to be WP:RUBBISH. There's enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable. Acquisition news can be found from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/588 and http://www.manufacturing-executive.com/news/read/Siemens__UGS_Is_the_Merger_Working_32562. Seakskyk (talk) 8:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Would someone please close this AFD. It's been open for several weeks now, and I think the consensus is clear. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.