Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximo (MRO)

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maximo (MRO)

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

blatant advert for non notable product entirely sourced to their own website Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional article with no reliable sources to establish notability. The references presented currently are primary sources, actually most are leading to the website of the subject. Xaxing (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC) striking blocked sock puppet Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly the article seems to be out of date and lack the type of context that would make it really useful to a Wikipedia user. It also needs some better sources.

That said, I would suggest that it meets our notability criteria as one of the two EAM solutions (along with Infor EAM) in the "Leaders" quadrant of the Gartner 2017 Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Asset Management. My opinion is that for software, placement in a Gartner MQ listing for several years (since 2011 at least for Maximo) equates to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we have more specific criteria for software, feel free to link to them.

I think a rewrite or quick edit from a knowledgable person (not me) could improve the article a great deal. A good place to start might be to pull a copy of a couple of industry analyst reports and write up the pros and cons as determined by these outside observers. Right now, I don't see the type of copy/paste or peacock words signs that usually appear on blatant spam. Also of note, this WP article has been around for 13 years. (Disclosure: I work with IBM software, but not this particular offering, and not directly for IBM.) Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placement in a listing isn't a substitute for reliable, independent, secondary sourcing. PhilKnight (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS. The idea that listing in a Gartner report means anything is absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2018 (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.