Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EdgeBOX


 * 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 already deleted, as spam per the deletion log. GRBerry 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

EdgeBOX
100% spam. Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. Parent company might also need to be AfD'd but going for the non-notable products first. Storkk 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete spam for non-notable software. JPD (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We disagree as it appeared in objective and independent market research such as articles from independent publishers as VON and the IN Stat report IN0501821LN about Business Gateways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio ines (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: market research is required to mention almost all players, no matter how insignificant. Market research is also not an article about the company or product, but about a range of products. --Storkk 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: we disagree again, as in a market research are only named major players that define the trends of the market, and not the ones that are insiginificant. This market research also dedicates one whole subchapter to edgebox, and being distinguish for its open-source approach. In the report only the following are analysed (in order of appearance):


 * - Cisco: ISR routers (which are available in wikipedia as the platform for "CallManager")
 * - Critical: edgebox
 * - Ericsson: HL950 Multi-Service Edge Device
 * - EmergeCore: IT-100 “IT-in-a-Box”
 * - Net Devices: SG-8 Unified Services Gateway
 * - Converged Access: CAP
 * - Alcatel: Right Vision


 * According with what could it be read on the definition of notable is: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports..." In this case, the market research can be, in my opinion, considered valid. Additionally the VON association, objective and independent, dedicated a publication to edgeBOX, as well when edgeBOX won the InfoVision Award 2005 to the best Broadband appliance or as a finalist to the Techworld award 2006 to the best product oriented to SMEs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio ines (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 September 2006


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: non-notable product, none of its features mark it out as worth its own encyclopedia entry. Reads like a piece of marketing material, so if it was kept it would have to be rewritten in encyclopedia style.16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: article fails to establish what is unique about this product and worth recording in an encyclopedia: total lack of references, lack of comparison to comparable products to establish notability, lack of data regarding its success in either market terms of technical terms. Sockatume 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. --Dennisthe2 18:28, 29 September 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.