Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya FAST Stacking


 * 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   redirect to Avaya. Deleted first, and redirected. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Avaya FAST Stacking

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable technology consisting of technical detain not suitable for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep but consider merging with similar technology. what "technical details"? I see one modest paragraph of . basic specifications. Too general even for an advertisement, but the correctamount of detail for an encyclopedia--or perhaps it might be esxpanded. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An editor has added numerous articles about Avaya products to such as extent that it has collectively become SPAM. It has skewed the coverage of technology towards that company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete Userfy for lack of encyclopedic technical detail. This article would be suitable for inclusion if only it contained some content that actually explained what the technology was, did and how it achieved it. "You turn it on by pressing a button" isn't good enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * comment I am just a volunteer and editing/adding content as fast as I can to these AfD requests, and other pages, but when users like Alan Liefting, selects many (as many as 8) AfDs pages in a single day [] it is very hard to do a good job cleaning up and citing all of them at once, I have asked that he tag them with the appropriate tag and give an appropriate time for the page to be fixed instead of AfDing pages as the first action.  I don't think he is trying to drive editors away, but this disruptive action could cause them to get very frustrated about adding content.  I read the Wikipedia CEO was asking for us to get more editors[], my opinion is that these actions have the opposite affect. Geek2003 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not adding tags to them because the articles you are creating should not even be on WP. We are trying to build an encyclopaedia not a product catalogue. Yes, WP does need more editors but it needs editors that help to build an encyclopaedia not ones that add SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a huge backlog of more important work to be done on WP then creating articles about all sorts of Avaya products. You are skewing the WP coverage of technology by adding these articles. It is a sort of SPAMing by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree absolutely with you over this principle, although I do agree with your conclusions in this case.
 * We cover Pokemon in infamous depth. This is not because Pokemon are especially noteworthy, but because we have no shortage of space to store their coverage. We also have navigation and categorization methods adequate that these articles aren't "in the way" of more worthy articles. For both of these reasons the "too skewed towards" argument for a topic is specious. Mostly though, we collected Pokemon articles for the simple reason that editor effort was available to write them - not my effort, not your effort, but some editors saw them as personally sufficiently interesting to do the legwork. Avaya is a similar case in point. I have nothing like enough interest in Avaya to write these articles, but Geek2003 evidently does, so good luck to him. We do not have any sort of "quota" of Avaya articles, that once filled limits our capacity for more.
 * That said, we still apply our quality standards to Avaya articles, same as others. They must be notable. I would also claim that they should be of adequate quality. My !votes to delete (and probably the majority of them too) is on this basis alone - If an article can't communicate some encyclopedic content about some worthily notable topic, then we shouldn't have it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Avaya - as should probably be done with the dozen other articles about individual protocols produced by Avaya, none of which appears to be individually notable. They are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page, for the convenience of any would-be redirector. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect How do we accomplish a redirect during an -afd?  Last article I tried that on the edits were reverted. -- Geek2003 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First we let the AfD run its course, then we decide. The point is that major changes to an article during AfD have a risk of disrupting the AfD process. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I strongly oppose the idea of redirection to Avaya. Who is going to traverse that redirect path and be happy about where they ended up? It would even be better if a redirect went to Router theory/Principles of capacity stacking That's the principle that someone will be looking for if they come searching for an explanation of Avaya FAST technology.
 * I'm reluctant to delete this article. It's a good topic, we should cover it. However the current article has no useful content.
 * This article, starting from scratch, should explain what "FAST stacking" is. What it achieves (bundled bandwidth), how it does it (bundling many physical channels into one virtual channel), how Avaya do it, and how Avaya's approach fits into the environment of many vendors and standards. It must answer the questions whether this is proprietary or based on existing standards, and whether it can talk to other non-Avaya routers remotely and still deliver the feature, possibly indicating Cisco et al's own brandnames for the same techniques. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Before it does all of that, it has to pass the notability test. Where is the significant coverage from multiple reliable sources demonstrating that the system is notable - and providing reliable sourcing for all the information you think should be in the article? --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you, as much as it surprised me when you informed me of WP:RS, that there's an extensive trade press out there, devoted to networking products like this. Please don't pretend that you actually believe there aren't sources to support this, rather than it simply being a poor article that hasn't yet made use of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is coverage in the trade press (but not the general-interest press) sufficient to establish notability? Because all kinds of trivia gets covered in the trade press but does not belong on Wikipedia due to lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted the above question - is coverage in trade magazines sufficient to establish notability? - here. The best answer I got was a quote from WP:CORP, which is speaking about corporations rather than products (unfortunately there is no notability guideline for products) : "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." This suggests that if a particular trade magazine is of "limited interest and circulation," its reporting would not be sufficient to establish notability. Of course, some trade magazines are of such major circulation and broad scope that they would qualify as sources - because they are not of "limited interest and circulation". Wired comes to mind. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken, there is a notability guide for products. It is at WP:PRODUCT. It pretty well spells out why this article should not exist. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not a technology, it's a particular company's product. And there's nothing informative in there even about their product....everything in there is superficial features about their product. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. So this should go for 2 reasons.  100% sales, and no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see scope here for a notable article on a product. However, and as the article name suggests, this shouldn't be an article on the product, the Avaya ERS 5500 (which oddly, passed AfD quite easily), but rather on the technology of bandwidth bundling, as implemented by Avaya. That's an interesting and encyclopedic topic - I might even want to read that. The ERS 5500 article though, that can only very rarely become more than a parts list made from recycled press releasese. IMHO, only if products show or gain some technical or cultural significance beyond their mere existence and spec list should we have those: iPhone, yes; a new colour of iPod case, no.  Like the Avaya phone articles, I support an article on the new 1100 range because they're doing interesting new things, but not on listing models one-by-one.
 * We don't yet have a useful article on FAST, so I'd like to see this userfied until we do. Or else delete it - it's no loss. In the long term though, I would like to see an article that explains what "FAST" means. The notability of FAST has nothing to do with WP:PRODUCT guidelines, it's not a product. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into Avaya ERS 5500. I'm getting a whole lot of nothing searching the usual places for evidence of general notability. --Kvng (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would favour going the other way and replacing Avaya ERS 5500 with Avaya FAST Stacking. I think the specific article is too much of a product catalogue (which is not our task), but we ought to be able to produce a useful (and I care far more about that than mere notability) article on a topic of interest, that of capacity bundling. This topic may be hiding its references out there under a more general title, not this brand name. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Y'know, Andy, nothing is stopping you from creating this article about FAST you keep talking about. I hope you will just boldly do it. I personally think it could be an excellent article, and all these not-so-notable individual product pages could be redirected to it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the subject, which is why I want to read it, not write it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with North8000. It's just product info that doesn't belong on WP (WP:NOT). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:59, 8 September 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.