Talk:Condusiv Technologies

Speedy delete: WTF?

User:Coren, why would you tag this as a speedy delete? This page is about a major software company, producers of the well-known Diskeeper software? This page also helps resolve a debate on the Diskeeper talk page, that being the relevancy of the scientology-related content on said article. The scientology stuff belongs here, because it relates to the company itself, not the Diskeeper product. If you feel that this page has no merit, then why don't you go after the Raxco Software page, an article on a similar company that has even less content than this one, even though this one was just created. — EagleOne\^Talk 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't go after any page. Since I do newpage patrol, the page that was "just created" is the one I'll see. The reason why this was tagged has nothing to do with scientology, but with the fact that while the article didn't even get anywhere near notability guidelines (which I suggest you read), it did meet CSD A7.

Now that you added a bit of meat to the article, I agree that it no longer meets criterion for speedy. It's still reads like ad copy, though, and still does not meet basic notability guidelines. If you add some reliable sources, it might begin to be an encyclopedic article.

I'm not going to bother with AfD-- you're obviously working on the article. But remember that the company making notable software isn't necessarily, itself, notable enough for an article of its own. If the only reason the company info was split from the Diskeeper article is to be able to introduce the association to Scientology, then perhaps you should ask yourself if that motivation was truly neutral. Coren 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You most certainly did go after this article, especially since there are similar articles with even less meat than this one that you have not tagged. I don't give a damn about scientology either, but I do care when one of my pages is unnecessarily targeted for deletion by overeager admins.

Exactly how does this article read like an "ad copy"? That doesn't make sense. Usually marketing material contains some positive phrases about the company; there are none in this article.

Let me make my stance on the scientology aspect perfectly clear: I have no feelings toward that religion, one way or the other. I simply created this article to resolve a debate on the Diskeeper talk page, NOT to introduce an association with the rligion. The scientology content was pulled from an earlier edit of the Diskeeper article. I didn't create the content myself, just copy and paste. The scientology aspect is notable, but it relates more to the company than the product, thus the creation of this page. As for the reliable sources comment: did you see the Notes section? — EagleOne\^Talk 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

since I am not the author

I can and do remove the speedy tag, which I think is unreasonable altogether. Of course, anyone who thinks otherwise and wants to pursue the matter can and should take the discussion to AfDDGG 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your actions. --Gtcaz 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "management technology"?

This article mentions "management technology" several times. Does this phrase have a meaning in English? It sounds like a marketing term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.244.158 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Update

Judging from the ludicrously dense corporatese buzzword thicket that is the announcement, the company must still be operating in the Scientology order of things. Only an Operating Thetan VI or above could wax so ineloquently opaque... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.91.161 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Create new article?

Now that the company has adopted both a new name and logo, plus all the coporate branding that comes with it, surely it would be best to create a new article, put all of the content from this one into the new one, and then forward from this one to the next?

I've done a bit of updating, but I don't have time to find a good sample of the logo that would fit well in the title of the article to replace the Diskeeper one. I kind of regarded my modifications yesterday as a provisional change until the following questions are resolved:

1. Whether the create a new article solely for Condusiv is created, and leave this one solely concerning the history when operating as Diskeeper Corporation

2. OR, do as above and simply move the whole lot lock stock to new article to replace this one altogether.

Williamh120 6th March 2012 20:27 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Condusiv Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225074941/http://holysmoke.org/cos/dis-keeper.htm to http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/dis-keeper.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)