Talk:HCLTech

message: As is this article has POV problems - it reads like an ad for the company.  It either needs to be rewritten or deleted. RainbowCrane 05:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I am planning to clean this article over the next 2 days. --Kalyan 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problem 

message: I agree. This company is a divsion of HDL and I believe should be dealt with on the HDL page. As most of the material looks like its pasted from press releases, its not a case of merging either, rather than deleting.Saganaki- 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have revived the article. HCL Technologies is an independent company which is part of HCL Enterprise much as the same way TCS is part of Tata Sons, just that HCL Enterprise consists of just 2 major companies - HCL Technologies and HCL Infosystems. --Kalyan 14:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this should be kept on wikipedia.  It figures in the News-of-the-World/Murdoch scandals. 109.157.196.43 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: cf http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/world/europe/a-2008-e-mail-at-the-heart-of-a-hacking-scandal.html?_r=1 109.157.196.43 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose for deletion

message: If there are any volunteers, this is what we need to do:
* History & management changes
* Services offered
* Acquisitions
* Financials (if required)
--Kalyan (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: Is trim the list of business deals to ones that may have been most important in the growth of the companyDGG (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: what we really need to do

message: I declined the  nomination. While I agree that some parts of the article are written in a promotional tone, I don't think the article is exclusively promotional. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion nomination 

message: I propose that this article should be moved to HCL Technologies as that is the name of the article.  "Limited" is simply a statutory addition to reflect the public nature of the incorporated body and shouldn't be a part of the article title.  This practice has a number of precedents on the encyclopedia as well, for instance, the article on "Google" is not titled "Google Inc.", and the article on "Reliance Industries" is not titled "Reliance Industries Limited".  — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.It should be done.--Sandy (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, the 'Limited' is completely unnecessary and non-standard.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming 

message: The section "Corporate Governance Framework" is totally promotional in nature. I suggest that it should be removed completely. The removal will improve NPOV of the article. Fellow editors, please advice.
GSwarnkar 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal suggested "Corporate Governance Framework" 

message: This article is drowning in low-quality promotional passages. I'm not even sure whether wikilinking "solutions" in the second sentence was a subtle form of vandalism, made to point out the vacuousness of the content. This gets even worse in the most recent sections on "Culture" and "Branding". The latter is an entire section of promotional company self-representation with not a shred of critical analysis. Do the company's branding efforts agree with their actual performance, or at least with public perception of the company (ie are the branding efforts successful)? I cannot tell. How much does the company spend on advertisements, and have they won any critical acclaim? I cannot tell. Instead we're treated to claims about being "a valuable global technology and IT enterprise", "a multi-faceted technology solution provider", "a technology provider that impacts people at every stage in their lives" and so on. The "Culture" section is only marginally better. Yes, it mentions case studies, but it says nothing about their content. Gartner is cited as having "highlighted customer benefits" (which in itself is so vague it's almost useless), but in reality it's much more ambivalent, noting some advantages to customers, but also some disadvantages (for example, "Potential clients should recognize that no degree of employee empowerment can compensate for a critical skills deficiency"). That's actually a very nice source, but it's made bad use of - appropriately summarizing it likely wouldn't make HCL look good enough. And how exactly does being customer-focused align with an "employees first, customers second" attitude? It doesn't, yet the article claims HCL does both at the same time.
For these reasons I'll remove those latest two sections (and the "solutions" link), but the article needs much more work to be brought in line with WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM. Huon (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --122.167.156.37 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: I'll be taking up the activity of revamping the page over the next week. This is one of the biggest IT companies of my country, India.
The objective to revamp it would be over the following topics:
- Outdated text
- Neutral point of view
- Verifiability
- non-promotional tone
TheGarvitGupta (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article requires revamp