Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8x8 (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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

8x8
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable article about a company that only has passing mentions in the reference given which is against WP:CORP. Most of the references are also press releases that are not WP:RS. A Google search doesn't show up anything notable to be on Wikipedia. Aha... (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now perhaps at best as none of this currently suggest a better notable article. Notifying 1st AfDers, , and .  SwisterTwister   talk  23:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments given at the previous discussion. --TL22 (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. IDK what is meant by "notable article" but the subject of the article is notable -- if one takes issue with quality of current article: do the required research and footwork to improve it. The company is publicly traded on NASDAQ (notable itself??); of which at least their financials are easy enough to find wide coverage of and some Yahoo Finance stuff related to symbol and stock (FOX Business appears to have discussed at least the financials on T.V. -- I don't have the pox-infested Adobe Flash plugin so can't examine video); other stuff is slightly more difficult to come by as they're buried under mountains of corporate propaganda (aka press releases). The latter point is also troubled by the company having a generic name. However there is a fair bit of content related to corp's -- slightly easy to search for -- old name Packet8, product reviews , this thing in New York Times and covered numerous times in the early 2000s on Leo Laporte's nationally syndicated radio show The Tech Guy  (Internet Archive copies). Please also be aware that Google only indexes (and ranks even more poorly) only about 15% of a Web that is infinite -- there is stuff in there, you just can't be lazy when looking for things (try some Boolean, site: operators or a meta-search engine). --  dsprc   [talk]  13:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no such thing as a "non-notable article". Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who can't be bothered with Flash. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I usually look first at investing.businessweek.com, as their business model requires that their customers have confidence in the information that they provide, they have an army of reporters, and my experience has been that their inclusion criteria is a good fit with Wikipedia's, .   Given that the stock is traded on NASDAQ, there is no surprise to find a Company description there.  I seem to recall a discussion on WP:CORP to the effect that publicly traded corporations by their very nature have a high profile of public attention to the topic.  So starting AfDs on such topics is almost certain to be an exercise in futility.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.