Talk:Nutanix

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I think it is useful so long as it isn't just marketing materials. People might want to know, as I did, what the company was doing. --Jazzbox (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually created this page along with one of its competitors, both of which are notable. I can see over the last year and a half that both have been extensively edited (likely by those with a COI based on the content added). I don't see a reason to delete them for being promotional, but I would vote butchering it back to where it was when I created it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The competitor is SimpliVity. You can see from the edit history that had each company in a "see also" section for the other which has been removed. The only reason I can see for that is someone close to the companies did not want their competitors mentioned. Could also explain the reason why an IP address recommended this for speedy deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Last comment, promise - Appears that the IP address who listed this for speedy also added the advert tag to SimpliVity. It also edited the article for Nexenta Systems, which tells me it is likely a competitor. Classic case of disrupting Wikipedia, but that's just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This was brought to my attention since I recently changed "SOLUTIONS" to "PRODUCTS." The word solutions is prevalent in marketing hype. Such and such "solution"... to me product is a neutral word. So my opinion is to keep the marketing-speak out of this, although I know that is subject to opinion. Some words are obvious, like the unbearable "leveraged" but others more subtle.

Jazzbox (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh much worse than that. "Solutions" provides no information whatsoever about what the company does. For example, my brother is a "provider of transportation solutions". That might mean he repairs bicycles, or sells shoes, or used cars, or drives for Uber. Turns out he works for a railroad. Nothing to do with solutions. Just use simple English. If they sell products, say "products", if services then say "services" etc. No jargon or buzzwords please. W Nowicki (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech Issues

Lots of a technically incorrect information given. Major re-write required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NISMO1968 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there is still more work to do. However, I would think that replacing a link to what I thought the company did (computer software for storage virtualization) with a link to a marketing term with Marketing Capital Letters (MCL), is questionable. Just by having more "hype" in a neologism does not make it "technically correct". It makes it marketing-speak, not English, which capitalizes proper nouns only. W Nowicki (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Analyst predictions

Appears to be a non sequitur; moving here for storage in case the source is useful for something else:

• Analysts expected Nutanix's public offering would be delayed.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not promotional

I reverted edits an editor made to the page as I feel it removed much referenced, neutrally-toned material. The explanation of the products and technology are completely neutral and not promotional - simply having in-depth information about it (such as Microsoft) does not make it WP:SOAPBOX or promotional, unless it is written in that tone. As the guideline says, "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" - as it is here. Garchy (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

This edit link restored much uncited material, removed on WP:V grounds. Pls see WP:BURDEN which precludes restoration of unsourced material. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROMO

The same edit restored material that is strictly promotional:

• Nutanix software and appliances can be purchased from Nutanix resellers, as well as from the company’s original equipment manufacturers, Dell and Lenovo.

Advises readers where the products can be purchased.

• In August 2016, Nutanix announced support for running its software running on Cisco Unified Computing System servers.

Advertisement for the company's products sourced to a redressed press release.

References

Both fall under WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with stating that the company work with resellers (not all companies do) and who their OEM's are. It is written free of puffery, and is referenced with a third party citation. Announcing support is also not promo - it doesn't prohibit any of this under the guidelines you mention, it only says that it must be free of puffery and referenced to a reliable third party source. If there is other info that is uncited you may want to tag it and give other users a chance to cite it (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) - especially since the WP:PROMOTIONAL issue you mention has been contested. I have no issues with improvements to the article, but the edits you made were substantial and removed information that should not have been. Garchy (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:BURDEN: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." I suggest the editor self reverts. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Editing policy: "Requesting a citation by adding the citation needed tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate". I think you'll find that on Wikipedia there is an opposing rule for every rule. I won't be self-reverting, as I'm not working against policy or edit warring. I will, however, ask for other editors to comment as we appear to be at an impasse. Garchy (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Could the reverting editor please clarify if they have any affiliation with the subject of this page, Mohit Aron and / or Cohesity? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope - simply have a knowledge of the tech field so I am involved in article creation of notable companies I am aware of - unfortunately, you won't find an COI here - especially since there are no peacock words in any of the articles and it is neutrally toned. Garchy (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I AM the creator of the this page and have watched people - likely with a COI - add information to it like as if it was the company website. I have also seen people trying to vandalize this as well as SimpliVity its competitor. I fully support the removal of the content that was done a few days ago by @K.e.coffman: as it was unsourced and had a promotional tone. A tag next to the content requesting citation needed is not mandatory. The editor is challenging the information, as am I at the moment, and should be removed. I would support the addition of the content if an editor can produce a reliable source supporting such content. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The info I'm looking to have restored is referenced to reliable third party citations. If there is a challenge of any COI added material I am fine with it being removed, that was not my issue as stated above. Garchy (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted to the less promotional version. TechTarget is not RS; their business model is content distribution for tech vendors. They have an editorial arm, but it's got to be at the lowest level of fact checking, reliability and independence. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note: your "reversion" has reverted to a version that has been contested - you cannot simply continue to affirm your point of view and revert that way - you must find a middle ground, especially when you are removing non-promotional, reliably sourced information. Why do you continue to remove the tag to Cohesity, which Aron started - this is not promotional, changing from "Mohit left Nutanix to start Cohesity" to "Mohit left Nutanix to start another company" has no basis, and is removing good content - an issue I've had with you from the beginning, and something you have not respected (you continually revert to the same edit instead of modifying what you are removing based on my concerns. Garchy (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well for me, my only connection is that back when I was employed, I once worked for a company where I think Mohit had worked years before. Never met him, not do I have any interest in either company. Yes, please let us work together to get an article that describes what the company does instead of an edit war. It should not be surprising that some sources are not independent, since this is a commercial company and thus sources might be biased. We just need to paraphrase in neutral tone. Similarly for press releases or sites that repeat them with little editing. Factor out the actual information if there is any. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: here's the permalink to the ANI that editor Garchy has initiated: ANI close, as pertinent to the discussion at hand. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevancy disputed, as it was posted to the incorrect board- hence why it was removed prior. The "close" was closed as "ANI not the correct area for this" - It may be wise to read about when to let it go or this, as I've found a middle ground is nearly impossible to reach and I'm taking a break from this conversation. Garchy (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)