Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Unified Communications Management


 * 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. It's fairly obvious that either canvassing or outright sockpuppetry was going on here, but even after that is filtered out there is still a consensus that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article, although in need of some rewriting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Avaya Unified Communications Management

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable software per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY. See also my discussion at Articles for deletion/Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep informatrional not promotional WP:NOTABLE review notable refs. 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 108.110.185.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: This "keep" vote is from the author.


 * Delete Jsharpminor (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just found this error after checking into my hotel, I am not the author 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. However, you've been editing a whole bunch of Avaya articles that are all AfD'd. Just wanted to let other editors know about the potential conflict of interest, whyever you may have one. Cheers, Jsharpminor (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tanks - I'll ask author 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the Unified Communications Product family has a long and notable history. Signficiant information is being added to the page to make it substantial, educational and informational not just bullets.  There are several other pages on similar subjects with less content than this such as CiscoWorks with only bullet points and are not WP:NOTABLE that have not been nominated for deletion.  Let's make sure that Wikipedia remains democratic and fair.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.199.68.157 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)  — 216.199.68.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete far too much primary content only lightly reworked to avoid copyvio. If competing product suites have not yet been AfD'd that shouldn't influence discussion here. - Pointillist (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides good information about Unified Communications and is corroborated well by good references.Hence definitely a Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machismo500 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The artice has been edited to remove any spurious marketing material and now provides both substantive and WP:NOTABLE content. This article is now all original work, and I cannot find any examples of similar copyright work. As noted by the external references by independant third party authors the product line is notable and innovative.  - ManagementMan (contribs]) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — ManagementMan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Text in the article that would appear to be marketing or promotional such as Comprehensive or Innovative web based are actually corroborated in the references from indeoendant authors included in the Article if you actually take the time to read them all. This is a notable and well written article with many references.  I would question the judgement of anyone deleting this article as it stands now and leaving a simple bulleted page like CiscoWorks as the user above mentions.  - 71.81.24.12(contribs) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.24.12 (talk)  — 71.81.24.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, as this article is well-written and notable enough to have its own article and is one of the booms of Avaya, in opposite of my votes on other Avaya nominations. This-one should stay, IMO.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Undecided This might be the one exception to my recommendations here and here that 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. However, if kept this article needs to be trimmed by about 90%; it is a bloated mass of technical detail. Wikipedia is neither a sales catalog nor a technical manual, but that's what most of these Avaya articles appear to be. --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Well written with lots of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtex 1 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. I'm also worried about the number of contributors to this discussion who appear to be unfamiliar with normal wikipedia processes such as signing entries in discussions such as this. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep 15 valid citations with separate authors are cited from within the article establishes WP:NOTABLE and this software has 15 years of history. I found thousands of additional citations within google searches and will add if needed. Geek2003 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Geek2003 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Closing admin: most keeps are SPAs involved in editing Avaya topic of questionable notability. Was going to non-admin close keep until I verified this.--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/ManagementMan has been opened.--Cerejota (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm concerned that the article reads much more like a product brochure than a dispassionate discussion, and that many of its writers and defenders seem suspiciously CoI'ed.  However, given the numerous references to the subject (or, at least, to one of its component parts, formerly called Optivity) in the books and magazines cited as sources, I feel forced to acknowledge that the subject does seem to satisfy our notability criteria.  If the article is kept, though, it still needs a lot of paring down.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article should be renamed after it's former name, if that's the name it's more commonly known as? There does seem to be quite a bit of renaming in this group of articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of issues so understandable it ended up here, but regular editing can fix that. Szzuk (talk) 11:02, 18 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.