Talk:Gartner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents

[edit] Broken links

Reference 7 is a broken link.--Sebastian Stadil 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rather than AfD

I know they are notable. Would you like me to edit to remove items that will bring them in line? Please use my talkpage. meatclerk 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion

Sure, Gartner is notable. But this article doesn't demonstrate either the notability or the verifiability. It would be best to improve it ... Brian 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.99.221.180 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks meatclerk

Thanks, that's better. It still really needs more independent sources than the Gartner website to pass WP:CORP. Nice start. Brian 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

I've cleaned out most of the advertising stuff. It's up to the other authors to improve on this. I'll PROD of AfD again, if need be. meatclerk 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Opinion

Despite the fact that my posts are regularly derided (not that I'm complaining), I spent a lot of time researching Gartner, its history, its founder and its contribution to the REsearch and Advisory industry - founded by the eponymous Gideon Gartner. Someone (I believe from Gartner) erased everything I wrote, converting it back to an ad. Hmmmm ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afbcasejr (talk • contribs) }

Please, sign your comments in the future!
As for your comment - you must be kidding? Your version of this article was even more like like advertising! Futurix 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current PROD 2006/12/14

I support PROD. This article has shown no improvement and remains weak. Will support AfD. --meatclerk 07:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why PROD again after repeated tries over several years.? I look forward to discussing the AfD, for an attempt to remove the article about probably the largest IT consulting firm. Just needs some unbiased edits, and refs.DGG 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material added

1. fields of business, rewritten using info from its website, the best source. 2. references--its published/blogged/posted work and articles about it. 3. business history, a little, same amount as other corporations.

more tomorrow. DGG 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Shame on user:NickelShoe for doing the lazy thing and nominating this instead of actually taking the time to fix it, and also on anyone considering supporting it. The purpose of AFD is not to get articles improved. This company is so obviously notable it is ridiculous and the nom borders on bad faith. Stop whining and start working. {{sofixit}}. pschemp | talk 14:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There was definitely some loaded language in this page, like the use of the word "buzz-words" and saying that Gartner has a lack of IT knowledge. What's that about?

Jaystannard 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)JayStannard

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gartner136.gif

Image:Gartner136.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)