Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I see no valid arguments for keeping. The so called "reliable sources" are obviously either promotional or have no significant coverage, as shown by many participants here. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nextiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for this company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary, passing mention, local, routine announcements and non reliable sources. (Wow, Nextiva participated in the Ice bucket challenge, let's put that in an encyclopedia).
This has been repeatedly built by paid promoters as has the subject of two previous afds.
The first was created by a now banned spammer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva where there was overwhelming concensus for deletion, with only a few sockpuppets attempting to have their advert kept.
It was then recreated by an undeclared paid promoter who deceptivly posted it at Nextiva Inc. to avoid connectionwith the first afd. It then went to afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva Inc. which closed as no consensus despite no credible keep votes.
Now banned paid promoters also created articles on the company's ceo, Tomas Gorny. First deleted at afd, second was deceptivly posted it at Ṭomas Gorny to avoid connection with the first afd and was speedy deleted as a repost.
Not only is this company not notable, their agents are gaming the system in an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. Help stop the rot and delete this page. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and Keep. This discussion comes shortly after duffbeerforme's last nomination failed just a few months ago. At ANI, duffbeerforme was warned by multiple admins, such as @JzG: and @RHaworth: to stop gaming the system, after he speedily nominated the same article for deletion while an AfD discussion was going on (and not going his way)! When his speedy nomination template was removed and the AfD was closed, duffbeerforme moved the article and then nominated for a speedy deletion again! Others present for the discussion, including @Kagundu: and @CerealKillerYum: can also attest to this, as well as duffbeerforme's inappropriate behavior, in which he used expletives to address Kagundu in the last AfD. The OP clearly has an agenda to delete a well sourced article and it's obvious by his multiple failed attempts and gaming the system, despite several warnings to stop. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some Wikipedians need to get a life. I didn't even read the full AfD this time. This is just ridiculous; it's like there's two sides lobbying Congress. I'm not voting. Have fun. CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page is for self-promotion and publicity, lack general notability. The company and its founder is created by probable paid editors. It is created as some users feels that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given by your edit history I think you are playing the same book that the shill @Kwisha was using as reported by @duffbeerforme here. Blanking your talk page to get rid of warnings and flooding your edits to cover your non-constructive edits.A few hours ago you just posted in two AFDs within a minute and I wonder whether you even had the time to read the arguments for and against the respective deletions. I also doubt whether you really know what notability as per Wikipedia policy exactly means given your success rate in creating articles. Out of the 17 you have created 13 have been deleted.
  • Keep - @Dufferbeer's argument that the article states the subject participated in the Ice Bucket challenge is flawed and misinforming. The article doesn't mention this at all. The reference has been used to show that the president of marketing in the said company is the person named in the infobox. Granted the first version was created by a spammer but is the article notable? Yes for the reasons given by me and other editors at the first AFD here. Other Wikipedia administrators have stated that the current article is far much better improvement from the unanimously deleted version. I don't know what is it with this subject that could make a seemingly experienced editor break a Wikipedia policy after another just to get it to AFD or CSD. But what could do I know. KagunduWanna Chat? 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lie. No such consensus has ever existed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nextiva Review: Best Business Phone System for Call Centers
  2. Nextiva shares vets’ war stories
The article itself is WP:ATD, and per policy, there is no indication of discussion on the talk page, just some sort of reprimand against the nominating editor. I'm not clear on how the nominating editor arrives at "Now banned paid promoters also created articles" as he provides no DIFF, nor relevance.
Disclosure I am a declared paid editor with no connection to this firm, but I have done a couple of POV reviews/improvements for an editor who brought this AfD to my attention. I do not know if the editor is paid or declared. This is obviously an editor(s) conflict that duffbeerforme appears to be abandoning WP:AGF on and should be taken up in another forum. 009o9 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, this was somebody who contacted me cold outside of Wikipedia for an opinion on the AfD only. I've advised them that if they are paid, they should disclose, per WP:PAID -- 009o9 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On your sources. Huffpo is a namedrop. Trivially trivial coverage. 1. Not a reliable source. "Business News Daily's goal is to help entrepreneurs build the business of their dreams" 2. Like the Icebucket piece this is pure promotional puff driven by Nextivas own PR. From the same author and blog.
On the Now banned paid promoters. First Nextiva article was created by User:BiH who is now blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account". Partial disclosure is availalbe on the user page. Further evidence is available via their [1]. No diffs are available due to deletion. Same with Gorny. Second Gorny page was created by User:Kwisha who is now blocked for "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes." No diffs are available due to deletion but evidence is available at [2]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Renzoy16's targeted canvassing above and the outside canvassing that's happened I am providing some balance by pinging the other participants from the previous afds that gave a !vote and are not blocked as socks. User:Sbwoodside, User:DGG, User:Jbhunley, User:Howicus, User:Kudpung, User:Richard Harvey, User:Brianhe. Missed any? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another article by a paid editor for a non notable company. The references may look impressive, but they are almost entirely notices and press releases, or awards that do not qualify for notability. The awards of for being a new company, which is what "fastest-growing" almost always means. In Wikipedia terms, the meaning of that is "not yet notable" "Best places to work" is a trivial award, and should not even be included in articles. An award from the communication company Polycom is an award from a business partner, and meaningless for notability. As a low point of absurdity, one of the references is for running Linux on one of its servers! As for promotionalism, the effort in the Awards section to show the importance of unimportant awards makes it clear enough.
Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
I think including "best place to work" is one of the attributes of an organization like this one. Not inducing WP:OTHERSTUFF but hey, other articles have this as you can see [here] and so I thought I could include it here too.If @DGG: feels it should not then I will gladly remove it. The article has nothing promotional in it as every bit of information therein has been referenced and informative about the organization for that matter.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. But that's a minor point: I think the article unfixable; and I think the firm non-notable, so there's no point in trying to rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Joining the Linux Foundation is not a claim to notability nor is anything in the article. Since this company seems to be the focus on an onwiki PR campaign, once it has been deleted the title and Nextive Inc., which it has also been deleted under, should be WP:SALTed Fails GNG and NORG. JbhTalk 18:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to distinguish it from a large number of other similar competing companies. 03:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand this reasoning for this debate. I think Wikipedia is not about having competing companies being here or not.
  • Note to closing admin I think what everyone participating here has missed is the disclosed Conflict of interest that the nom has in the subject since by their own words "(Disclosure: Nextiva has been a licensee of some of my written work.)" as seen here. Whether the deal went sore is an off the record discussion.The disclosure came after several comments after which the nom has been falling head over heels trying to get the article deleted as seen here and here. On the other hand we have a disclosed paid editor who is the creator of this article and this to me appears like a COI vs a COI like we are lobbying congress as @CerealKillerYum: stated earlier. I doubt whether there is fun in this though. On one hand an editor solicits for votes in the AFD and then the nom comes and puts a notice that this is not a voting contest and while at it the same nom solicits for votes from other editors in previous AFDs to strike a balance.Do two wrongs make a right? KagunduWanna Chat? 03:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your disingenuous misdirection and misrepresentation in defense of this advert is getting worse. Take a look at that diff you linked [3]. Then look at the quotation marks that surround that disclosure. Then look at the source being discussed. Scroll down to the second paragraph where the author of that source, Micah Solomon, makes that disclosure about himself. After you've done that I suggest you retract your libellous tripe. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kagundu: you have misread the diff you link re Duffbeerforme. The quote is looks to be a quote from the source to show why it is not independent. It would have been better if they had provided a link to the quoted statement to avoid any misreading but the "" set it aside well enough to understand. You should strike your mistaken claim now that you know. JbhTalk 12:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about it @Duffbeerforme:. I read it as if you were the one making the disclosure. Next time tag it correctly as @Jbhunley: has stated above. Recunted my comment. KagunduWanna Chat? 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply repeatng what I said in the previos AfD: Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability. When the most serious and experienced editors such as DGG, and Voceditenore, who like myself have spent years combating some of the worst cases of misuse of Wikipedia for direct and/or indirect financial gain, it's probably more likely that our arguments are based on policy and accepted practice than those of editors who just come here to monkey with our processes, game the systems, and foster petty skirmishes among themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)are suggesting that articles such as these should be deleted,[reply]
  • Delete. Since my name was mentioned above. I'll give my opinion. I am just not seeing significant and independent coverage of what is basically a local privately held company with at most 200 employees, but an obviously very energetic PR department. Analysis of the references:
  1. Mention of and soundbite from the company founder in an article about the use of robots in offices and industry in general, not about Nextiva or even him (Chicago Tribune) With respect to such soundbites attesting to notability of the person being quoted, this article", in the Columbia Journalism Review should be required reading.
  2. The company taking part in the local Ice Bucket Challenge (Phoenix Business Journal). So what?
  3. Brief announcement (5 sentences) of the company planning to hire more people (Phoenix Business Journal), unsurprisingly published the day after the press release at www.nextiva.com/news/2012-news-archive/business-growth-in-2012.html (can't hyperlink because nextiva.com is globally blacklisted)
  4. Decent source (The Arizona Republic) but basically an interview with... ahem... Nextiva's Chief Information Officer, local business news
  5. Interview with the company founder in Entrepreneur. The author, Carol Roth, has a disclaimer at the bottom stating that the Nextiva founder was one of her clients and indeed she produced multiple features for Nextiva's blog.www.nextiva.com/voip/author/carolroth (as per above, the link is blacklisted)
  6. Article in Tech news Today which basically parrots this press release from Panasonic and even links to it. Note, in the ref the publisher is linked to Tech News Today, but they appear be not the same publication at all.
  7. An interview with the company founder on the Linux blog, apparently one of the perks of paying to be a "corporate member", e.g. [4], [5], [6], etc. etc.
  8. A joint press release from Frost & Sullivan and Nextiva about one of F & S's multitudinous "awards". This makes interesting reading about Frost & Sullivan's "awards".
Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2016 (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/Nextiva_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138160850"