Talk:Intertrust Technologies Corporation

Trying to rescue

There was a low-quality article on this company, which was deleted and then restored into draft space. Please keep it around to give a chance to rescue. The company has been around for over a quarter century, so hope it could meet the notability threshold. Thanks for patience. W Nowicki (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

But it is a fact that the article is one big advertisement... The Banner talk 21:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

looking for help/advice

I'm very new to Wikipedia and I understand I did not follow the guidelines when I updated this page last month. I am an Intertrust employee and was asked to update some info about our products. Can anyone tell me if the current draft is ready for publishing? If not, can I do something to speed up the process? Thanks, Arthurnoort (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Arthurnoort First, see WP:PAID if you're a paid employee or spokesman, and second, this is still an advertisement even with the recent changes because what's still here is only advertising the company and its services alone. There's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else regardless and there's no compromising with our policies. This won't be accepted until at least these changes are made (note some of the sources are clear firsthand PR to begin with). It's important to note Wikipedia is not a business PR webhost and articles with these contents still aren't accepted even if "it's the basic information and what they offer". Considering this was deleted before, it's going to take an enormous amount to convince accepting. SwisterTwister talk 08:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how the text of this page differs much from, for example, Adobe Systems. The history is described, some products are described and then Adobe even has separate pages for each of its products. I honestly cannot see how a company page can exist according to the guidelines if the current draft text is considered too promotional. What if we just delete the Products section, is that more acceptable? Arthurnoort (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It differs from Adobe in a number of ways. Obviously Adobe is much larger and is still public. So there is naturally more independent sources for it. The more subtle difference is that Adobe makes products that are used directly by consumers. This also tends to give is more independent coverage. Intertrust sells technology or intellectual property to other technology developers or providers. I trimmed the Products section and renamed it to attempt to make that last distinction clear. Alas, all I could find was primary (or effectively primary) sources for those additional web sites made to look like additional companies, so maybe that whole section might have to go unless there is some independent coverage of those. There are more independent sources for the history section, especially the Microsoft suit and the attempt to get cell phone companies to license Marlin, etc. which could be beefed up further. However, I have a life....

Of course every editor is entitled to an opinion on if this is "advertising", but generally arguments are more persuasive if some reasoning is given.  :-) My thinking was that an advertisement would say the company is the "global leading SaaS provider of hyper-converged infrastructure platform solutions" or some other string of buzzwords and acronyms. An article that discusses both the highlights and struggles of a company over many years is less likely to be considered "advertising" in my experience. W Nowicki (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Info

Hi, I updated the article, but I saw this now. I am informing about the changes I made, please have a look and guide me if there's any problem or other procedures. GoogliGo (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)