Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exinda Networks

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exinda Networks

edit
Exinda Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be merely Press Releases or trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Euryalus (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sorry, gotta disagree with you. I stumbled across this AFD (never heard of the company before) and read just a couple of the references, and the articles are absolutely about them, what they are doing, and how what they are doing isn't trivial. The articles are not mentioning them incidently, they are featured subjects. One of the articles claims that they are "Exinda Networks, the only provider of Unified Performance Management (UPM) solutions worldwide..." etc. Passes wp:notability, can be wp:v with wp:rs. They aren't Cisco, but they seem to pass the threshold nicely. The article needs cleaning up and despamming a bit, but that is a reason to improve, not delete. Pharmboy (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The forbs reference "Business Wire - Press Release" [1]. or the "separate release", [2] or every eweek.com paid promotion are by Paula Musich [3] (note Email Address) who writes for Ziff Davis Publishing Enterprise, Inc., a "Innovative Media and Integrated Marketing Programs "...In which "Ziff Davis Enterprise creates innovative media that targets technology markets with online, events, custom content, eNewsletters, print, Virtual Tradeshows and eSeminars. Through integrated marketing programs, we leverage our qualified 4 million IT database to help you reach new customers and extend relationships with existing clients."--Hu12 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment by Hu12 is misleading. Ziff Davis is a magazine publisher that owns publications such as [eWeek] and PC Magazine. Like many online or offline publications, eWeek generates revenue through advertising. The quote above is taken from Ziff Davis' page about its marketing programs. I don't see what this has to do with eWeek's articles about Exinda. The fact that a publication generates revenue through advertising does not disqualify it as an a secondary, independent source. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that eWeek's articles on Exinda were paid advertisements by the company. Vpdjuric (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Learn more about our products, services and customized marketing programs..."[4] →"To have a Ziff Davis Enterprise Sales Director contact you to discuss integrated marketing opportunities..."[5] . Doesn't sound like they are selling magazine subscriptions..--Hu12 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Ziff Davis/eWeek offer "integrated marketing opportunities" is not evidence that the eWeek Exinda articles were were paid advertisements. Assuming so is presumptuous. Even if you are correct (and I'm not sure how that could be ascertained), Exinda has been covered in-depth by multiple, reliable, secondary independent sources, which makes this argument moot. While I appreciate the vigor with which you fight spam, you use specious reasoning and selective evidence to corroborate your claims, while completely failing to consider evidence that contradicts them. Vpdjuric (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Byte & Switch acknowledges it is a company press release.
  • Article 2 in Network World is an interview with the CEO. It does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines for the statement for which it is used.
  • Article 1 in eWeek starts "The company claims its Service Delivery Point SAAS will simplify and reduce the cost of installing, configuring, monitoring and reporting on the performance of its WAN optimization appliances." and then goes into what it will do at some point, with long quotes from the company's CEO.
  • Article 2 in eWeek starts "Exinda marries WAN optimization with traffic control on enterprise networks.Australian WAN optimization provider Exinda Networks on Nov. 20 hopes to gain a foothold in the North American market with a unique ability in its appliances to classify recreational traffic such as Skype and BitTorrent on enterprise networks." Just over half the article is a single quote from the CEO. The article only gave competitors one line to reply, and had a clearly dismissive tone in that section.
  • Forbes acknowledges it is a company press release.
That leaves Article 1 in Network World, which is a weak basis at best. Basically we're looking at a business which has done its marketing very well, but has little substance on the ground, and the offerings it's saying it may offer or undertake - where's the evidence of them? Why are all these articles two years old? If this is such a major new standard, why can't I find a single entry in an Australian newspaper on Factiva about it that has Exinda as a primary subject (given they are an Australian company and Factiva covers most newspapers back to the late 1990s)? I find some waffly thing in the Age's Business section which talks about venture capital in Australia vs the US and quotes him amongst many others, but not much else. I'm not seeing any contradictory evidence. Orderinchaos 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct - this is a press release.
  • Can you clarify why this does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines?
  • Do these quotes disqualify the article as a source to cite?
  • Is the fact that the article has long quotes from the CEO and, according to you, uses a dismissive tone about the competition grounds for dismissing it as a source that can be used to establish Exinda's notability?
  • Yes, this is a press release.
  • The (non-press release) articles that you refer to are not "all two years old." Three out of the four were written in 2007, and the other in 2006. Also, the fact that you can't find entries on Factiva about Exinda demonstrates nothing about Exinda's notability or lack thereof. Selectively choosing corroborating evidence to fit your thesis of Exinda's lack of notability is naive empiricism. To clarify this point: while finding multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources covering Exinda in Factiva would establish Exinda's notability, not finding such sources in Factiva does not establish Exinda's lack of notability. And if the one source that you deem acceptable is only "a week basis at best," perhaps you should also consider these more recent articles, which I found through a couple of web searches:
  • Byte and Swtich, InfoWorld, and Network World are three reliable, secondary, and independent sources that have covered Exinda in-depth. As Pharmboy wrote, "having multiple articles written is the defacto definition of notability, per the policy."Vpdjuric (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Techworld, first sentence: "Australian WAN acceleration developer Exinda Networks has claimed an industry first with the launch of an acceleration box priced at under €2,000 (£1,350)." i.e. Another press release. Orderinchaos 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Having multiple 'articles' written about your companies products does not for notability make. The references included are essentially product marketing, and do not demonstrate actual notability of the company other then getting some technology journalists to truck out a few words on their wares. It's an unlisted company, it's not been involved in or joined to any significant events, and there's nothing offered so far which i've seen which sells the notability argument beyond WP:ILIKEIT. The article in all the forms offered thusfar is WP:VSCA and should be deleted as such. Thewinchester (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentThe first line in WP:Notability says: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. which seems to fly in the face of your statement. Having multiple articles written is the defacto definition of notability, per the policy. Pharmboy (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exinda_Networks&oldid=1280432736"