Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communigate systems
- 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, with no prejudice against someone creating a real article that isn't just an ad derived from their website. - Bobet 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite pleas with the article creator, this article continues to do nothing to explain the importance of this company. It's written like a company web site, although it's apparently not a copy (though a former version was deleted as copyvio). WP:NPOV is a problem here, and as long as the creator is the only one editing the article it will continue to be. So, delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (No vote yet) Looks like the company may qualify as notable, but there's no way the article qualifies as acceptable. It's pure spam. By the way, are there guidelines for use of the {inuse} tag? I thought it was meant to be for a few hours, not days. Fan-1967 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be my fault. The author was making a great number of very minor edits to this article, and I didn't want to nominate the article based on its content when it was still in progress. I suggested the author user the {{inuse}} tag while they were actively editing, and they left it up over the weekend (which is forgivable: not everyone wikis all weekend, after all), but at this point, there has been plenty of time to write the article. Mangojuicetalk 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate all the comments. CommuniGate Systems creates CommuniGate Pro, which is the email server f over 15 million Americans as well as 125 million users worldwide. Searches for "CommuniGate Systems" on google will yield over 70,000 results, most of which are reviews or mentions of the product created. This kept in mind, the original version had information concering the products we release and the relivence regarding them. While this was posted, I believe it was removed for reasons along the lines of "Corporate webpages that are here for commercial use should not be included on this engine." That being kept in mind, i did my best to edit and scale this page down to non-controversial non-partisian facts that are backed up with independent research (online magazines, publications such as Mac-World etc.) I am quite stuck as to what qualifies as a wikipedia page minus the concerns around neutrality. Many companies such as Avaya, Nortel Networks, Digium, all who do the same things we do have pages on Wikipedia, and in a couple of cases, these pages are much less inclusive of data than the one currently being petitioned. I can understand how WP:NPOV might come up as an issue, and I can accept this, but otherwise please let me know what exactly needs to be done for this to be as acceptable as other "corporations" on the site... Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel@communigate.com (talk • contribs)
- Comment Theoretically, it's possible for a company employee to write an unbiased assessment of that company. In practice, I don't know that I've ever seen it happen. The fact that other companies' articles suffer from the same failing is, sadly, undeniable, but not relevant to this one. Maybe the solution is have you write Avaya's article, and have them write yours (just kidding, I think). Fan-1967 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous version, as Mangojuice has already explained above, was deleted because it was a straight copy and paste of a copyrighted non-GFDL web page. This current content is only barely less so, and could be argued to be clearly a derived work, since its paraphrasing, of that very same web page, is (to put it charitably) halfhearted. What needs to be done to make this article acceptable is to delete it, in part because of the copyright concerns of the current text, and start again from scratch this time not using the company's press releases and the company's web page as the sources, as was done here. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you for the only way to create an encyclopaedia article about one's own company. If one cannot follow that advice, one should not write.
The article is an advert, and only slightly less of a copyright violation, of the blurb on the company's own web site, than the previously deleted version. Delete. Uncle G 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hello, I do not get it totally...yes, nobody wants a compay just to post marketing things on the WiKI, but why would CommuniGate not be important to have listed, it is not like they are not known or something? You see Critical Path http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Path,_Inc. You can see Openwave, both of these companies do the same thing, sell big mail servers, so what is the rub? Should we go through and delete all the company listings or inof profiles? I find it useful to see what is up with a company because you often will get more real info on the WikKi than some company website. Let them start the posting and let others put there some real truth about the company.....like do they really do what they say they do etc. User: Marsaro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marsaro (talk • contribs) .
- 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.