User talk:Solarra/Zoom(company)

"The Zoom CRC works with endpoints such as Polycom, Cisco/Tandberg, Lifesize, and others. Supports H.264, H.239, H.235, and G.722 protocols." I'm certainly grateful for the effort you're putting into helping me! However, I'm unsure as to why this was removed from the article. This is, after all, mentioning the hardware of other companies and protocols that the CRC follows, which are standards that other hardware complies with. I don't know how this may sound promotional. Mleivagomez (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Development
I'm going to keep further development discussion here vs my talk page. I am done removing all of the promotional bits I referred to before, it's all about encyclopedic value. After editing this, I think this belongs in Wikipedia, just needed a bit of work. As for the referencing part, I'll leave that in your capable hands. Just be sure to read WP:RS and WP:CITE but you have a good handle on that bit. Remember the company's own website is NOT considered a reliable source :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  23:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. What about company pages showing case studies where one of the University heads is quoted? Mleivagomez (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That should be ok, if it is the only source you can find, one or two is ok. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Really?
What does "endpoints" mean? Isn't that just marketing jargon? And how does a list of companies that this outfit has worked with confer notability? I own a small business which has done work for Google, Apple, Cisco Systems, McDonald's, Silicon Valley Bank, the Transamerica Pyramid, Burger King and the U.S. Coast Guard. Does that make my company notable? NO. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not an attempt to confer notability. The fact that the company has 10 million users is sufficient. This is to express what compatibility the CRC product has. It has not in any way worked with those companies (they are competitors, after all). But I see how this can be seen as promotional. I'll just leave the article as-is and submit it like this, once I'm done adding references. Thanks for your input! :) Mleivagomez (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait. I understand where the confusion lies ("works with"). What if I said "is compatible with"? The companies did not work with Zoom to make their systems compatible. Mleivagomez (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ready?
OK. Please let me know if the article is ready for submission. I will leave the CNs where they are and insert a note, since I will find the references at a later point (most likely Monday, when I have more time to dedicate to this). Is that fine? Mleivagomez (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from the deleter:


 * The article is clearly aimed at promoting the company and its products. We don't have basic company info like turnover, profits or number of employees (less than 100 could be three). Even the location isn't mentioned in the actual text. This boring stuff is necessary to show that it meets the notability guidelines.
 * You have a bit of history and a short section on the products, but then a long list (not proper prose) of self-claimed "notable" clients. It's spammy and unencyclopaedic, since a client base can change from week to week
 * Then we have another list of "notable" partnerships
 * And then yet another list of awards and recognition, bur strangely no criticisms, negative comments or unfavourable reviews

I'm afraid this is typical of articles written by a company employee or PR firm. It's a better standard than most in that it's well referenced, not copied from the company website, and avoids blatantly promotion language, but it still gives a very rose-tinted view of the company Miguel (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it very difficult to find criticisms, negative comments, or unfavorable reviews.


 * I can try to get a hold of the company to find out exactly how many employees they hire, but I'm unsure if I'll get something like turnover, profits, or anything else for that matter. This wasn't a purposeful omission; it was a result of my incapacity to find further information. Miguel (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've done quite well with my edits here: User:Mleivagomez/Zoom. In addition to finding criticism of the product, I have also taken out the list of clients and made a more concisely-worded version of the partnerships section. I think I'll run it by the admin who keeps deleting my article just to make sure it's A-OK. Otherwise, he may hammer it out again! I appreciate his enthusiasm, but it could have gone much more towards his favor if we'd have discussed the matter. Nonetheless, I now have his attention and perhaps we can work out something. :D Miguel (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)