Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exinda Networks

Exinda Networks

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Euryalus (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Speedy delete No evidence of notability. This seems to be a successful, but non-notable company. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'd agree with the characterisation of a moderately successful but ultimately non-notable firm. The sources provided are nearly all advertorial in nature, even the Forbes one. Note the first link from Byte & Switch explicitly notes it is a press release from the firm itself. Orderinchaos 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per Above. like the article, unfortunately. Twenty Years 15:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I re-created this article a month or so ago after it had been deleted because the original article had been deleted because it was written like an advertisement. I made a focused effort to write the article from a neutral standpoint, and I strongly disagree that Exinda fails Wikipedia's notability criterion. WP:NOTABILITY asserts that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Exinda has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as NetworkWorld (WAN appliance underdog Exinda pushes open standard, Making Headway into the U.S., and Exinda speeds up branch office appliance), Byte and Switch (Honda NZ Re-Optimizes WAN), Techworld (Exinda offers cheap WAN accelerator), and eWeek (Exinda Puts New Spin on Managing WAN Optimization and Appliance Lets Network Managers Control Recreational Traffic). The fact that two press releases are referenced in the article does not corroborate or give any evidence to the claim that Exinda is not notable, especially when you consider that there are full-length articles about Exinda in multiple, reliable, secondary independent sources that are also cited. Vpdjuric (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)