Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverbed Technology

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. joe decker^{talk to me} 01:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbed Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

More non-notable tech company spam. —Chowbok ☠ 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Large NASDAQ traded company. 81.218.153.66 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Large company, traded on NASDAQ, lots of notable mentions in news sources. Sources include:
  • Riverbed Unveils Strategy For Accelerating Access To Public Clouds
  • Quantum sues Riverbed over data de-duplication
  • RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY WINS WALL STREET JOURNAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AWARD
  • Riverbed Expands Cloud Storage Gateway With Appliance Models
  • Microsoft News - Microsoft Selects Riverbed as Application Acceleration Hardware Partner - A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly. This business is a designer and manufacturer of WAN optimization and network traffic measurement products. Simply being publicly traded on the second (and tech oriented) stock exchange does not necessarily mean they've had significant effects on technology, history, or culture. They might have: but press release based stories about contracts awarded, plans for future products, litigation, and petty trade awards you've never heard of do not make that case. I didn't find anything in Books or Scholar praising this business about the significance or historical importance of its wares, and News is mostly the same PR stuff. The article itself lists its product categories and acquisitions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although it needs cleanup to remove promotional tone, it's a keep because: 1) useful to folks researching NASDAQ corporations, 2) data is easily verifiable by trusted 3rd party sources, 3) Public corporation traded nationally in U.S. - Davodd (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Disclaimer: I edited this page a lot to get it into something which is readable and matches reality. I would like to object on the "non-notable tech company" statement: Gartner names Riverbed market share leader for WAN optimization (2010, 2009, 2008, 2007), Riverbed Named a Top Three Best Place to Work in the Bay Area etc. Yes, most of the news sources on the internet show press releases or rewritten press releases, therefore (unless linking from www.riverbed.com isn't as not done as I suspected) an objective source is hard to find. Funny thing btw is: The list of competitors contains everybody who competes with Riverbed. But do their pages link back to Riverbed? Didn't think so... Edwin Groothuis —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Riverbed is the maintainer of several notable network administration tools including Wireshark (formerly Ethereal), tcpdump, libpcap, WinPcap, and AirCap. This is because the creators of these tools are currently employed at Riverbed, after Riverbed took over CACE Technology. Given the importance of these tools and their listings in Wikipedia, it seems to me that the company should be listed. Danellicus (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2011 (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.