Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones


 * 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. The trend of the discussion is towards keep as sources have been added.  Sandstein  05:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Non-notable product. We are in dire need of a prescriptive notability guideline for products so that these AfD's can be resolved easier. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * merge into an article on the product line. That's the practical guideline that we have been using for most product articles, except the famous ones. Alan, any argument why that would not be suitable?    DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a specific product notability guideline we to have to resort to the general notability guidelines and the "spirit" of what the community wants to include in WP. Historic AfDs, the call by Jimmy Wales to improve the articles we already have (rather than creating stacks of new ones), the maintenance burden on a possible reducing number of experienced editors, and the need to be vigilant about SPAM by stealth are all reasons to take a hard line on product articles. I would like to see a prescriptive product notability guideline that can be used as a basis for speedy deletions. We already have such tools for biographical articles, by way of example, and it allows articles to be promptly speedily deleted. This saves the a lot of administration time for editors since there is no PRODing and AfDing, and no time wasted on building an article that may eventually be deleted.


 * The prescriptive notability guidelines currently in use may have developed because of the dearth of articles that didn't sort of fit in with WP. For instance being human WP editors naturally wrote a lot of bio articles leading to the creation of a whole series of prescriptive notability guidelines for such articles. The same thing should happen with products. While articles on, for example, the Apple IIe, Ford Cortina, iPod, Raleigh Twenty etc may be notable, but an article on the Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones is far less notable. It may be easy to have all manner of product articles referenced from trade publications and product reviews and so they will meet the general notability guideline but should they be included in WP?


 * So to answer your question DDG, an article on an Avaya product line is a little better than articles on the individual products, but my preference is that the Avaya article itself is devoted to their products (as recommended at WP:PRODUCT). At present the product section is a list with a template normally used as a footer jammed in it as it is at present. It should be rewitten in prose and the template removed.


 * I realise that I am not putting up strong AfD argument based on policy and guidelines but from a sort of philosophical, administrative and managerial perspective I feel that the previous comments weigh in favour of deleting some of the product articles on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -


 * Strictly Merge all-related to something like Avaya products: I would vote keep due to its notability in academic textbooks and being one-of-the largest unique voice manufacturer holding multiple awards, but multiple article have already been kept. I do believe their tone is promotional, and a large merge would be really helpful. You'll find a fun list here of tons of Avaya products that needs to be included. This AfD kept 4 more articles this week :/     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * helpful? it would amount to rejecting the possibility of providing information infavor of a mere listing. A mere listing is not encyclopedic when information is available to do more than that.   DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, delete, delete (Changing to Weak Keep, see below) Trivial article with no significant independent references; Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. See my comments at Articles for deletion/Avaya Energy Saver. It is absolutely ridiculous that every single item manufactured by Avaya has its own article at wikipedia, some of them mere catalog listings like this, others incredible bloated technical manuals like Avaya Unified Communications Management. In my opinion every item in that Avaya template should be deleted (without a redirect) in a mass housecleaning, and the various product lines should get a simple mention or at most a paragraph at Avaya. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete 100% of this is sales material / product catalog information.  Once that is deleted there is no article to discuss.   Also no indication of wp:notability.  North8000 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence the product satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a catalog. And notability is not temporary. If all present gadgets for sale by big companies deserve articles, then so would every gadget EVER offered for sale, and we could have tens of thousands of articles about every individual model of cylinder phonograph, mimeograph machine, slide rule, kerosene lamp, or buggy whip ever offered for sale, (and I'm talking models, not generic devices or manufacturers) with no ref but a catalog or ad. Edison (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Edison, don't you realize the suggestion is to merge individual projects. Nobody is suggesting ythis particular red herring.  DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Alan said "I realise that I am not putting up strong AfD argument based on policy and guidelines but from a sort of philosophical, administrative and managerial perspective I feel that the previous comments weigh in favour of deleting some of the product articles on WP" -- I can only say I would like us to do just the opposite, and reaffirm the policy that we have appropriate articles and articles sections o every notable product, present and past, with the distinction between articles and sections depending on their importance. That's what an encyclopedia does,   it provides information appropriate to wthe subjects that are worth readers looking for them. A catalog is different, it focuses on what the companies would lik eto sell, and their sales arguments--such material does not belong in Wikipedia.  I find it very strange that to argue that there is some class of subjects which, notable or not, should not be covered in principle. I consider that straight-out bias.  Alan's argument is, as he admits, contrary to policy: it amounts to IDON'TLIKEIT, and the argument and all arguments based on it should be ignored. I might as usefully argue that I think there is too much coverage of wrestlers in the world, and we should omit it. If necessary I scould add it just reproduces the promotional hype. And everyone could thus argue for omission of their least favorite subject. That would be quite a change from the basic principle of NPOV,  and fortunately no one AfD can accomplish that. All that an AfD like this  can do is, with its characteristically semi-random results, is to give us erratic coverage instead of reasonable merges.  ''Nobody is arguing to have  an article on " every single item manufactured by Avaya "   or any other company.  What is being argued for is combination articles of product lines. If this product line is thought too narrow, merge with other deskphone lines of the company. I distrust arguments that don't accept such compromises.       DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to keep an article here it must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If such coverage can be found for some of these product lines, then an article on them could be justified. If not - not. Where is the independent reliable coverage on (for example) Avaya phones or Avaya routers? And if such coverage cannot be found, what is the argument for "combination articles of product lines"? If the product lines have not received such coverage, the only options are outright delete or merge to Avaya. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added independent reliable coverage and evaluation testing by several companies and the Committee on National Security Systems certification documentation for just one of the 12 different models in the 9600 Series, that this page should cover.
 * So why do you not delete these pages without ANY third party refs or citation documentation? Cisco 837, Cisco 1000, Cisco Valet Routers, Cisco Security Manager, Cisco SSG-6510, Cisco LocalDirector, Packet Tracer, Hicom 300, Macintosh Quadra 700, Color LaserWriter 12/600 PS, Personal LaserWriter NTR, and Personal LaserWriter 300 Please treat all pages equally.  Geek2003 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)  — Geek2003 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have also created Maine_Army_National_Guard, Kentucky_Army_National_Guard, Trans_Canada_Microwave, etc, ect... Geek2003 (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the added references. I can see you are really trying and I appreciate that. However, they are neither significant nor independent. The "Tolly Group" citations are reports commissioned by Avaya - not independent. The government links merely confirm that the phones exist - not significant coverage. Significant coverage by independent reliable sources would mean something like: a review of the specific phone model (or of Avaya phones in general, if we are trying for a product line article as suggested by USER:DGG) by an industry periodical or general-interest publication; news reports (not press releases) about the phones; etc. Something showing that someone outside of the company itself feels that the product, or product line, is noteworthy. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF that you mentioned, those articles all have exactly the same problems - some are mere stubs - and it looks like it should all be deleted as well. Feel free to nominate them, or I may when I have more time next week. Some, such as Personal LaserWriter NTR, look like candidates for PROD since there is not even any assertion of notability. I see that most of these specific model number of product articles were created several years ago; possibly notability criteria were looser then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review my work. I have just included a book "Hacking exposed VoIP"  This book has 52 pages dedicated to the testing of the 9600 series IP phones and the 4600 series IP phones, and they go through and test each of the UDP ports used and how it affects the security and functionality of the phone.  Is this what you are looking for?   Geek2003 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So that is just about one particular aspect of the phone. If there multiple books about this model of phone and all aspects of the phone were discussed THEN there would be a better case for notability. I am sorry, but you are clutching at straws. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Geek2003, you list products that also do not have third part refs (some of which have already been though a recent series of AfDs). You need to avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Rest assured, now that you have listed them I will check them out for myself. Get ready for anther round of deletions everyone!! But seriously, WE  NEED   a prescriptive notability guideline for products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, bugger it!! This is all too much! I give up on all these product deletions. There are just TOOO many of them. It seems that there is an editor out there that is keen on Apple printers. It shows one of the the disadvantages of WP.  Since it has developed organically and the New Pages Patrol etc cannot keep up with it WP ends up with all sorts of systemic bias.  A WP editor likes Apple printers so we get too many articles on Apple printers. Someone likes Avaya and Nortel products so we get too many articles about them. There are too many computer geeks (I was one once) on WP so we get too much stuff about computer related stuff. WP is getting REAL BIG and it is getting REAL HARD to know if we are getting the right mix of article. There are valiant attempts to do this but it is happening at a higher level in the article importance hierarchy than at the level of individual products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't give up! We can do this! I just prodded all the black-and-white LaserWriter models - 18 of them - after inserting a mention of each of them into the article LaserWriter. If they stay prodded this could be a way of merging that information into a far more useful and encyclopedic format. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * added citations several - significant and independent citations with in-depth review of the 9600 systems are now added to this page. Geek2003 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my opinion to Weak keep based on the improvements made by Geek2003. The latest addition to the article consists of three reviews or articles by three different independent sources - Network World, Network Computing, and eWeek. Those are industry-specific sources rather than general interest, but at least they are independent reports written by staff at the sources. Also, the article has been modified so that it no longer reads like a catalog entry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * additional copy edit added more citations and content to increase WP:NOTABLE and improved encyclopedic value. Geek2003 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. Lots of sources just applied and undiscussed. Let's get some more input before closing. BusterD (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the refs are not suitable ie. blogs and from Avaya themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * News blog are allowed - WP:NEWSBLOG. Geek2003 (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed blog refs and Avaya refs; added many more refs; now 24 good citations Geek2003 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Good citations. 174.79.190.194 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good citations does not necessarily mean that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment History section added and now the page covers 15 different phone models, with 27 in-line citations. Geek2003 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The product satisfies WP:42 requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. If it does not explain exactly, in detail what is needed so I can improve it. Geek2003 (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple references that provide in depth reporting on this product. Bigtex 1 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The 9600 series is a Notable Product . It is unique in its ability to support built in VPN.  This is a first of a kind that could be deployed anywhere. Meets the criteria of  WP:NOTABILITY


 * Keep 3 Network World citation;1 Tata Mcgraw Hill and a Journal Citation. The article is WP:Notable.Machismo500 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Simply having suitable references is not the only requirement for a WP article. The topic must be notable in the long term, ie. notability is not temporary. An IP deskphone has as much long term reliability as a colour tv or a CB radio. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:38, 31 August 2011 (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.