Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexnode

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. Star Mississippi 02:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hexnode

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unregistered user tried to add this to the daily deletion log with the following edit summary:

This is just advertising for the company. Has nothing worth knowing what belongs in Wikipedia.

Completing the nomination on their behalf. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there is a case of violation of WP:COI, there are sources suggested by Wikipedia that help write the article in a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), if an editor comes up taking the responsibility of editing the article; which may solve the issues related to WP:N. WP:ORIGIN mentioned by the user Pavitapu is unclear, though. May be the user is referring to WP:N. A few references are in accordance with WP:REFBPLAIN since the retrieved date is cited along with. FlashWikipedian (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer

FlashWikipedian is apparently also a Hexnode employee.

This user also looks to be a marketing employee of Hexnode according to his Wikipedia history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlashWikipedian

@FlashWikipedian

Please do not use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. To provide information from a company, there are websites on the internet. You can not present an unnotable company from a neutral point of view in Wikipedia.

This is advertising and nothing else.

Please do not misuse Wikipedia for this purpose and use it as an advertising platform.

Here you can see that the references which are named for the page are not sufficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Source_assess_table/testcases

This page is not notable for Wikipedia. See here:

(WP:GNG)

(WP:SNG) Pavitapu (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe this needs an administrator review. User Pavitapu is also a user who has not yet edited any articles other than Hexnode. User's concerns are based on original research rather than facts or sources (WP:NOR), and behavior is absurd (WP:OTHERUSERS). FlashWikipedian (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pavitapu,

You're absolutely right. This page is not notable as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But, what I see is the chance of expanding this article based on sources suggested by Wikipedia. An article is non-notable doesn't mean it stays non-notable. FlashWikipedian (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Notability is a property of the topic, not the article. The essay WP:OVERCOME attempts to explain this: If a topic is not notable, then improving the article about it can't fix this underlying problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! As a new user, I still have a few questions regarding notability. Not here, but on talk pages. Notability criteria are harder to understand for a new user like me. I believe this article has a few verifiable sources that are trustable. I may be wrong; I was just going through the sources at the top of this page. FlashWikipedian (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Ten Pound Hammer: I think it's totally the right decision that it should be deleted.

This is clearly not an encyclopedia article and does not fit into Wikipedia. We need to keep Wikipedia clean from these pages. This is more about free advertising for the company Hexnode at the expense of Wikipedia. Such a page has no place on Wikipedia.

It is clearly intended as a backlink source for SEO optimization of one's own Hexnode website.

This company is not notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia (WP:ORGIN).

This page is in violation with the General notability guideline of Wikipedia.

This page was created by a Marketing Employee of Hexnode. (Redacted)

Explanation:

However, to qualify for a Wikipedia page, multiple references from reliable news sources are required. (Wikipedia source assessment table.)

This is absolutely not given here.

1st reference points to a broken link.

2nd reference points to the own website. Clear reference for backlink building.

3. guide for buyers. You get listed there for a fee. It is not a reliable news source.

4. reference points to own website. Clear indication for backlink building.

5. this is a press release written by Hexnode itself plus it is an advertisement. It is not a reliable news source.

Conclusion:

Absolutely clear, delete. Pavitapu (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user has changed his Wikipedia name after my hint above.

Before "Neerajor" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neerajor

Now "Be_Like_Me" : https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Be_Like_Me&action=history Pavitapu (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

This is merely the Government Ministries companies office confirmation of the company's existence. Fails CORPDEPTH
This from Networks Asia is a short review of 5 similar products with almost no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
This Buyers Guide is not "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND, it simply regurgitates information from the company. The document itself says that it consolidates, organizes, and presents information from the top 20 MDM service providers so you can see what they offer and what they don’t, fails WP:ORGIND
This from Solutions Review is based on a Press Release (says it at the bottom) and only talks about the Buyers Guide mentioned above. Also fails NCORP criteria.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 10 May 2022 (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.