Talk:Citrix Online

Proposal to redirect this article to Citrix Systems

Hello to any editors watching this page. I'm working on behalf of Citrix to evaluate and offer improvements to articles on Wikipedia related to the company. You can see some of the changes I've proposed over on the main Citrix article here. As I've done there, I will not be making any edits myself, but instead working with editors to come to a consensus about any improvements or drafts I suggest.

The reason for this message is to gauge editors' opinions about blanking and redirecting this page to the Citrix Systems article. After reviewing the article, there are several reasons I think this would make sense. Most of the content relates to the history of ExpertCity or general Citrix activities, not the Citrix Online division. There aren't any details here that relate to the Citrix Online division itself, such as employees, organization, or revenue (Citrix doesn't break out the revenue Citrix Online generates in their reports). Based on this, and the lack of sourcing to remedy the issue, I'd argue that Citrix Online isn't notable enough for its own article. The main Citrix article—along with the individual product articles like GoToMyPC and GoToAssist—cover any details from this page that are relevant, including an overview of ExpertCity, the acquisition of ExpertCity by Citrix, and the development and features of the collaboration products the division oversees.

I think the redundancy of the material in this entry makes it a good candidate for a redirect, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to go through the process of deletion. What do others think? Is this entry of use to readers? Does it make more sense to direct people to the main Citrix article? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Would a better option just be to move content that applies to Citrix Systems and leave only Citrix Online content on this article. It doesn't really matter if what's left is a stub. Stickee (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stickee, there's a few reasons here I think it might be best just to blank and redirect the article. Basically there really isn't any content here that refers only to Citrix Online—these details are all about ExpertCity, and then its acquisition by Citrix Systems and products/services it offers, which (with the exception of ExpertCity's history) is already included in the Citrix Systems article. Also, I'm just not sure that Citrix Online meets notability on its own. I've taken a look at sourcing and it's very limited if you exclude articles that are about Citrix as a whole or product launch articles. Finally, this division of Citrix is no longer operated as Citrix Online: Citrix is referring to this group as the SaaS product division now. It no longer has its own website or social media etc. As you can see if you click http://www.citrixonline.com, you'll be redirected to the main Citrix website. What do you think? Is it reasonable to redirect to Citrix? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying CO no longer exists and was rolled into Citrix? From what I can see, there's still mention of it in sources: [1] [2]. Stickee (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I just note that you said the products are operated by Citrix SaaS division, rather than a separate subsidiary. I've noted this in the article, using past tense for CO and mentioning that Citrix SaaS handles the products instead. What do you think about the wording I used ("Citrix Online's products are now handled by Citrix's SaaS division")? Stickee (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stickee, sorry, I don't know how I missed your replies here!! I think that it's a good step to note in the article that Citrix Online is no longer and that its products are handled by Citrix's SaaS division, but overall I'm still not convinced that Citrix Online meets notability for a separate article. What do you think on that point? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just popping back here to see whether you'd have any objection to me putting this article up for deletion review, Stickee? I think that (if you're not vehemently opposed to it) that might be the best way to see what the consensus is on whether there should be a separate article for this topic. Let me know! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and believe it is notable. For example, here's a sample of sources that discuss Citrix Online: National Law Review, The Oregonian, TechCrunch, V3, TechCrunch (different story). Stickee (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts here, Stickee. As you disagree, I'll drop the WP:STICK and let this go. I'm happy that now the page does reflect that Citrix Online is no longer a current entity, so thank you again for making those edits. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Citrix Online. 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/20070927003702/http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id%3B1580087904 to http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id%3B1580087904
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017180811/http://www.realmarket.com/news/expertcity062900.html to http://www.realmarket.com/news/expertcity062900.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)