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

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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PernixData

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

A couple of months ago, I nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PernixData. MelanieN and Keithbob put in impressive work and removed all vanispamcruftisement from the article, and I thank them both. Half a week later, after reading MelanieN's arguments, I agreed with her that PernixData was notable after all. The article was kept.

Just a week later, the article creator returned and started adding vanispamcruftisement back in again. We could keep the article and play the game of gradually semi-protecting the article for longer and longer lengths of time. But, on second thought, I respectfully disagree with MelanieN. PernixData is NN, and we should just delete the article.

Let me explain why PernixData is NN.

True, the Forbes ref is fine.

But the refs in TechCrunch, InfoWorld, Gigaom, Computerworld, eWeek, CRN Magazine, Virtualization Review, Modern Infrastructure, and Willemterharmsel.nl are not enough to meet WP:CORP. User:Ihcoyc said it best:

The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.

Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business.

MelanieN, Keithbob, I convinced you to de-spam the article; in doing so, I wasted your time. This was foolish of me, and a mistake. I apologize. :(

Still, I feel it is time for us to delete our PernixData article once and for all.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My first reaction was that a content dispute is not a valid reason for deletion (protection, etc. are the proper solutions), but this article fails the Hoover's test (i.e., it has no listing). Weak keep - still fails the Hoover's test, but now appears to meet WP:GNG even though the press coverage may be nothing more than strong PR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs clean-up, not deletion. I've seen this argument before, and I reject it. Trade publications are a perfectly acceptable source. The general notability guideline is quite explicit in its requirements, and there's nothing in it about TechCrunch's disqualification as a source of notability for tech-related topics. If the article sucks, then slap it with a badge of shame, contact the relevant WikiProject for assistance, and/or fix it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use of the strange neologism "vanispamcruftisement" is not at all persuasive to me. I reject the argument that all coverage in "trade publications" is worthless for establishing notability as many trade publications such as Aviation Week & Space Technology have very high editorial standards. The notion that InfoWorld and Computerworld are not reliable sources seems implausible to me. And if "Blacksmithing Today" and "Modern Blacksmithing" and three other reputable blacksmithing publications report that a certain person is the leading blacksmith of the early 21st century, then that person is a notable blacksmith. Coverage in Forbes just seals the deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I bow to no one in my frustration with the pervasive corporate spam and self promotional articles on Wikipedia, but this one clearly passes WP:N. With all due respect to User:Ihcoyc, he/she is not WP:RS. The argument advanced is not consistent with existing RS guidelines and should not be employed on AfD. Further, I respectfully believe AfD is not an appropriate forum for resolving interpersonal disagreements with other editors. If you believe someone is routinely engaging in inappropriate editing, then caution them. If that fails refer the matter to Admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nominator raises salient and interesting points, however, most notable is that we will have to continue protecting this article to prevent its continued editing by PR reps who will always have more time (since they're paid to do it) than the volunteers at WP will have to revert edits. With deference to the points raised by Ad Orientem, while that is not considered grounds for deletion in our GNG, I am making a common sense/Ignore All Rules decision to override those in expressing my opinion for delete. This article does not contain essential knowledge or information. More harm is done keeping these kind of non-essential articles that are destined to become promotional pieces than in just shutting them down completely (at least until they reach the point of notability where sufficient volunteer eyes are on the article to avoid its PR manipulation). BlueSalix (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, the PR guys might have more time than any one of us, but there's many more than one of us. If the disruption gets out of hand, we can always protect the page. Like Ad Orientem, I hate the idea of voting to keep spammy, promotional articles, but this does fulfill the criteria for inclusion. WP:IAR is a better invocation than WP:CORP, but I haven't yet seen evidence that we're dealing with extraordinary circumstances that require us to bypass existing (and working) policies. Normally I'd support raising the bar on notability guidelines, but I think this goes too far. Too many important niche articles would be affected, and it would be near impossible to satisfy notability concerns on anything less notable than a multinational conglomerate like Sony. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you just said in theory and you raise valid points. In practice, however, while the "more of us than them" argument works on big articles like Lady Gaga, on a niche article on a tiny tech company, it never will function because - at most - there will be 1-2 WP editors paying attention to it (usually less). I've just had to throw-in the towel on an article being sat-on by 3 different and very aggressive PR agents because I was the only legit editor on it; it was so niche no one else really cared. Now it just sits here as a promotional bio, untouchable. If I had my druthers, in situations like that, the article would be deleted and salted. We've got to stop being so huggy-wuggy, chocolates & flowers, around here. At some point a precedent has to be set because the dam is bursting holes more frequently than ever and this whole thing is about to come crashing down. I maintain my Strong Delete on this for reasons of Line in the Sand. BlueSalix (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that such a thing happened. Which article? And did you contact WP:COIN? —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks. It's Ronan Farrow but the situation is so complex that there's really no point in raising it as an issue. The PR edits there are 100x beyond the norm; it's a very skilled team effort - the sockmaster, in some cases, will actually coordinate his socks to make block noms against you. I was emailed off-WP by a journalist who was interested in the guarding of this entry and had additional information so my cognizance of the situation is fuller than I would be able to explain in COIN. While this might peak your interest, I would really recommend avoiding that entry at all costs unless you want to get dragged to hell and back. I just treat it as an "off limits" article at this point. BlueSalix (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No apology necessary, Unforgettable; I felt then the subject was notable based on sources, and I still think so. Notability abides in the subject, not the state of the article. We have many article here that are vandalism magnets or POV-pusher targets, but that does not mean we delete them; we simply do what we have to, to keep them encyclopedic. Among other things, that's what watchlists are for. Similarly, I don't really understand what this company does, but I wouldn't expect to; I am not a techie. The people who DO understand what this company does seem to find it valuable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The page was clearly a PR job for it failed to mention any competitors (easily found in sources) and seemed to avoid citing the more straight-to-the-point sources [5] too, but I fixed that. This is the kind of start-up that typically gets bought by bigger fish, like ioTurbine before it. A lot of the industry awards really are cruft though. I should add that PernixData employee FrankDenneman, who has edited this article, is among the most well-known VMware bloggers [6] (and self-styled member of vMafia), which probably explains the awesomeness of the press coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvements, Someone! --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2014 (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.