Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradford Networks (2nd nomination)


 * 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 CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bradford Networks
Article about a company that doesn't even say what it does. No assertion of the company's notability in the article, fails WP:CORP. Kimchi.sg 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted yesterday, but that version was a copy and paste, which arguably lacked context. The new version is written from scratch. Kimchi.sg 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete: recreation TrackerTV 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a copy and paste of the same page anymore, thus doesn't qualify for G4. Kimchi.sg 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

'''This remarkable company introduced new concept "NAC OS" at the first time and their position in the NAC market is getting bigger. More objective information will be added. Please accept this page. Thanks. - Dsk7061-'''
 * Delete Its website ranks over 3million on Alexa. Um, lower scores are gooder scores ;-)  fails WP:CORP.  Rklawton 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed on WP:CORP, but please be wary of using Alexa as a measure of notability. This doesn't appear to be a web-based company, so Alexa's relevance is questionable to being with.  Even if this were a website, according to WP:SET "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites".  Because of the significant bias and flaws in Alexa's measurements, its rankings can never be used to assert "non-notability". --grummerx 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. *drew 02:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP as a non-notable company. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. -- Kinu t /c  04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no idea about this one. Dsk can you provide more information? --HResearcher 07:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be worth nothing that this user is the creator of the article, and has only contributed to pages relating to it and its deletion. RandyWang ( raves/review me! ) 08:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is worth nothing, but I think there are many users who specialize on only certain articles or perhaps only one article. What needs to be looked at is WP:V and that's why I'm asking Dsk for references. --HResearcher 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - the company "specialises" (what does that mean, in this context) in an unheard-of and non-notable operating system. Combined with such a high Alexa ranking, this article has no reason to exist. RandyWang ( raves/review me! ) 08:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:V or WP:SPAM, if not both. WilyD 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above; spam. Also consider for deletion Network Access Control, which seems spammy, lacks context, is vague and abstract, and uses the phrase emerging technology space.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, WP:CORP, and especially WP:SPAM.  --grummerx 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the content. Thanks Smerdis (and others), you got valid point. I just removed the content. Thank you all Wikipedian here for helping me to learn more about Wikipedia. I will study more about Wikipeding : ) -Dsk7061-

hmm... I guess I do not have permission to remove the content. whoever has the permission, please delete the content with title. Thanks - Dsk7061

Thoughts

First of all, appreciate all you conscientious Wikipedian. Actually, it was first time to post a message here. I am very impressed with such a powerful self-cleansing action by Wikipedian.

As to this matter, I want to tell several things.

With a little bit my experience with Wikipedia, I just think about three keywords for Wikipedia. “Curiosity”, “Explore”, and “Define”

According to the current description of NAC by Wikipedia, “It is still an emerging technology space, and many vendors are taking advantage of this lack of definition to jump on the NAC bandwagon. But if we boil down NAC to its essence,” This means we need to provide more information to define what the NAC is in general somehow.

“If we boil down” who is the “We”? “We” should be individual, school, even company, anyone who got interested in NAC. In order to boil down NAC objectively, I believe we need to gather more information(fact) about NAC from all different channels excluding subjective opinions. But related concept, idea, and even specific solution should be introduced.

Especially, lots of vendors work on the NAC so it would not hurt to introduce NAC-related companies.

I think that “unheard-of and non-notable” does not help defining the definition of NAC at this stage. I guess that it is against “curiosity” and “explore”

Just thought.

Thanks for all your good work, Wikipedian!

- Dsk7061

PS. Is it ok to count myself as Wikipedian : )


 * Comment: Actually, the three keywords for Wikipedia would be more like "neutral, verifiable, and free. You might want to read WP:8W and some of the pages it links to. Hope to see you continue contributing! —Scott5114↗ 17:15, 4 August 2006 (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.