Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya ERS 4000


 * 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. While there was some discussion of a merge here, that discussion should probably be continued on the talk page as there is insufficient agreement here to mandate a merge. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Avaya ERS 4000

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but pare back significantly, or merge. Appears to meet GNG via IT World Canada and Techworld.  -- No  unique  names  22:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep & merge  to an article about this product line, but  keep a substantial amount of the basic content.   Anyone urging an outright delete, should explain why a merge isn't suitable, because according to WP:Deletion Policy, merges are preferred to deletions.   In any case, WP should contain an article or substantial section about every major product line from a major company, though not a full article about every individual project. Some earlier merges of Avaya products reduced the content to a single line giving the name of the product in the main article. Those are destructive merge, and all such sections need to be expanded.  A single article about such a company and all its products is absurd undercoverage  DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * there are about a million other similar pages Avaya, someone from Avaya has been very good at spamvertising their products all over wikipedia. delete them all per WP:ADVERT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @The Red Pen of Doom, I admit to not reading this article very carefully. However, I really cannot see why you feel it is merely an advertisement? Can you please explain why you feel the way you do? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If this were the only article for Avaya, i would not see it as an advertisement - however the fact that they have created stand alone article pages for every version of every product of every line they have, it is clear they are attempting to utilize Wikipedia as a free online catalog to promote and advertise their junk. The kind people who have donated their money to wikipedia to pay for servers to create a free online encyclopedia are not making their donations to give free servers and hits from the highest search engine domain to promote outside commercial interests. delete all this and all the corporate Avaya spam.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep & Merge The importance and impact of the technologies of this company and the industries/persons/scientific formats they serve far supercede the paranoia associated with them "having too many pages on Wikipedia" for "each little product." When we consider that "each little product" they manufacture is of significant use, then we must consider that "each little product" at least should be served with recognition on an overall page. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to keep. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. Alternatively, redirect to Avaya, per WP:NOTCATALOG.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Selective merge, to an article about the product line. Retain what is notable and verifiable. 1292simon (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Each of the products of the various company lines are indeed worthy of acknowledging, whether you understand the uses of the technology or not. Merging retains the information without neglecting it's presentation in article form. Since Wikipedia is all about saving information at the expense of simply deleting it, that approach is probably the preferent. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * actually, wikipedia is "all about" creating an encyclopedia, not about keeping "stuff" just cause its "stuff"'on the web. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You say "potatoe", I say "potato"...get over it. It's useful information. Merge it or get a degree in IT so you know what it's all about. Maybe you should ask a librarian if it's worth the research. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * no, I say "encyclopedia" and you say "WP:ILIKEIT" while also flinging personal insults. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of "useful information" that is not appropriate for wikipedia. I believe WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. 1292simon (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in cited sources. Improve, don't delete articles with problems. -—Kvng 04:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, I WP:DGAF about the corporation. Don't own any of their products; don't use their devices.  But I do know what it is they do.  That I point out there may be valid question of it's worthiness is something for consideration, not offense.  Thick skin comes with Wiki, as plenty of times folks make points you do or don't agree with.  Don't take it personal, just make your points.  I can also be assured you didn't read the comments from others above, as some came from a librarian, researcher, scholar, IT user, etc..  I mean really, look into it before going sideways.  You've missed the contradiction of saying; "If this were the only article for Avaya, i would not see it as an advertisement..." while forgetting I (and not just singularly, mind you) made a Keep & Merge suggestion, seeking to combine the article space for their offerings and hence "the only article for Avaya."  Alternately, I would not be adverse to a Redirect, as that would basically accomplish it similarly.  Typically, informed adults don't worry so while bandying words.  Wikipedia is NOT about winning, it's about hitting the  key and finding some useful information.  Go figure.  Oh, [[Image:Smile.png|20px]]; /hug Яεñ99 (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PRODUCT. The article doesn't seem to be written in a promotional tone and appears to have been created in good faith by an experienced (if currently absent) editor, who I've now notified of this nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2013 (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.