Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya ERS-4500 Systems


 * 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   merge to Avaya. Courcelles 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Avaya ERS-4500 Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable product that is wholly sourced from the manufacturers data. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The user:Alan Liefting has nominated almost all the pages belonging to Avaya for deletion, over the last 2 weeks. This looks like user bias.  Geek2003 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I could make an accusation that you are using WP as a vehicle to promote Avaya products - but I won't. Maybe you are simply an enthusiastic editor who so happens to like Avaya products... And please give a justification for your rationale to keep the article. And have I nominated "almost all the pages belonging to Avaya"? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, do the pages belong to Avaya??? Jsharpminor (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to think it is sloppy language rather than ownership of the pages by Avaya. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User user:Alan Liefting has nominated 15 pages for deletion in less than 2 hours today that are all part of the WikiProject_Nortel which I am a member of. I would like assistance in correcting or expanding the pages instead of deleting them. Any feedback/assistance is welcomed. Geek2003 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge And clarify that Avaya is not the lone "victim". The computer technology articles are a somewhat haphazard collection. There seems a general movement to go from articles on individual products that are just cut-n-paste of a spec sheet into more historical narratives covering how a product line evolved through the years. At least this is what I generally favor. We are also doing it with some of standards articles that often can be consolidated into fewer but better sourced and more complete ones. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a product catalog. In this case, the content is just a statement of the specs and a table sourced by company spec sheets and a press release. Not even a mention as to when they were announced or delivered. I would say one article on the Ethernet switches made by Nortel and Avaya. Other "series" articles have a better chance to stick around. It is a stretch to say the 4500 is a series, since they seem to be a single design, just with some models de-populated. This is common to many other vendors' products, using the normal Broadcom or Marvell chips. See Dell PowerConnect for example (although that one is also rough). The problem is this takes time compared to the simple "one product" article, so they tend to just get deleted. W Nowicki (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and use as the basis for an article of larger scope. Major product lines from major companies are notable. But the correct level of aggregation is normally the product line, and, if W Nowicki is correct, as seems probable, this is not the correct level--perhaps the best way of proceeding would be to use this as the start of an article of Avaya Ethernet switches. Such would be the proper level--merging to the main article on the company is impractical for such very large companies as this. It would yield an unmanageable article, and the coverage of the products would degenerate into a mere list, which is not  encyclopedic, as it wouldn't  have any actual information. The actual contents here is not excessive detail; a summary of the basic features is  encyclopedic content, to distinguish one model from another. A catalog page, which I think we all agree we do not want, would include everything.    DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog. Lacks independent and reliable sources to support notability. Edison (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * performed copy edit and added many 3rd party refs to provide WP:NOTABILITY. Geek2003 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep informatrional not promotional WP:NOTABLE review notable refs. 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This "keep" vote is from the author.


 * Delete / merge Jsharpminor (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Avaya. Lots of those refs are from Tolly Enterprises, LLC searching for that name seems to bring back lots of Avaya pages. I suspect that there is a business relationship between Avaya and Tolly, despite their webpages using the word independent a great many times. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at their web site, it's a wholly unjustified aspersion. They seem rather exactly the model of the sort of site that would review these items. They are clearly not affiliated with any particular company. Rejecting such sites  as not independent leaves essentially  no possible references that could ever be used for this sort of products, and amounts to saying that these products are non-notable, because it is intrinsically impossible that anyone will ever write about them objectively.  I don't think Wikipedia makes this sort of flat-out rejection for any class of articles. Myself, I do not think anyone has ever written from a truly neutral independent POV on religion or politics; where would such criteria for sources leave us?   DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Added citations from the Defense Information Systems Agency. Geek2003 (talk) 14:50, 15 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.