Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllCity Wireless


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

AllCity Wireless

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company and the article is spamish. This sort of company should be way below the purview of Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The Annapolis Wireless subsidiary is notable in itself as one of the few success stories in the Muni Wireless business. The AllCity Wireless parent company is certainly notable if you are interested in the management of public-access wireless networks.  Its products provide functionality far beyond that of, e.g., Cisco controllers (the ACW gear is used to supplement, not replace, Cisco gear, to enhance the public side of the wireless networks).  If you are a WISP, and you are looking for proven, dependable product, the major US distributors will all recommend adding ACW gear to the procurement shortlist.  Junckerg (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They are good reasons for having it the article in a business directory but not in Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep AllCity Wireless is a notable company which is clear from its past acheivements, both in the GSA schedule achievement and it's placement of its device globally. 13 November 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton2012 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep AllCity Wireless meets the corporate notability guidelines. It was a pioneer in small city blanket metro WiFi deployment, and the tools it developed to enable that business are now being adopted by other WiFi providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarshalluk (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But the WP:CORP guideline is useless. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The WP:CORP guideline IS useful and used by many others on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton2012 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Having worked with Cisco, Motorola, BelAir, EnGenius, and many other vendors makes this company's claim to being vendor agnostic factual, as well as AllCity Wireless meets the guidelines for corporate notability through Wiki. — Preceding comment added by Chug187 (talk • contribs) 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To the point of whether the article should be in a business directory, but not in Wikipedia: the company is admittedly smaller than Cisco or Motorola Mobility, but it is also way more innovative and, imho, interesting. It is well known, well respected, and widely deployed within the wireless "ecosystem".  I think it is of value to the Wiki community to have balanced articles about commercial entities such as Cisco, and Ericsson, and Motorola, etc. in Wikipedia, and I don't think that we should be drawing lines based on size, only notability.  And I would say that by any standard this company is notable in the wireless communications sphere, and is a suitable subject for an article.  Indeed, I would say that the WiDirect itself is just as worthy of an article as specific products from other vendors (e.g., Cisco) that have their own pages.  Just looking at routers, Cisco has separate pages for the 837, 1000 Series, 2500 Series, 7600, 12000, and CRS-1 and CRS-3.  I think that can be useful for people who are trying to learn about communications hardware, and is a valuable service Wikipedia offers its users.  But it should not be limited to information about equipment from the global oligopoly.  Junckerg (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable topic; fails WP:GNG. Most keep votes are from new editors to Wikipedia, and I stand with my before comment. TBrandley 03:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I question whether the proper criterion is length of time as an editor, and would point out that "most" keep votes are not from recent editors; rather, half of the keep votes are from people who (unlike the commenter) have been editors for years. I also note that the keep votes are uniformly from people who are evidently familiar with the wireless ecosystem, and the delete votes are evidently from people who are not.Junckerg (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - understanding of or familiarity with the subject is irrelevant because WP:OR isn't allowed anyway. Editors are simply asked to make an assessment about whether there is "significant coverage" enough to verify that the company/entity passes WP:GNG or, in the case of commercial entities, WP:CORPDEPTH. In my opinion, it does not. Some of the "sources" in question are simply press releases from commercial affiliate Nortel - certainly not independent of Nortel or of the entity in question who are supplied by them. The article from the Baltimore Sun might be from a reliable source but it doesn't mention the subject at all (nor do many of the others I might add) - they mention the subsidiary "Annapolis Wireless Internet". It's hard to see how it could be considered "significant coverage" of the subject if it doesn't mention the subject. To be perfectly frank, the sources are horrible - a mish-mash of corporate press releases, installation guides, and e-commerce sites selling particular products. Even accepting that coverage of the subsidiary = coverage of the parent company, there doesn't seem to be enough to substantiate notability.
 * All of that aside, the sudden "revival" of a few sleeper accounts is always cause for concern and their collective inability to cite policy and consistent "I like it" arguments aren't particularly convincing. We've seen it all before and as always, Wikipedia is not a democracy and these discussions are closed on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS and weight of arguments that cite policy and guidelines. So having a bunch of borderline WP:SPAs show up to vote-spam won't actually help anyway. Stalwart 111  05:43, 19 November 2012 (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.