Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epygi


 * 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   delete as an apparently non-notable company. -- jonny - m t  10:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Epygi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to show "Significant coverage" required by WP:N and has no reliable secondary sources required by WP:V. BJ Talk 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, this is a contested prod. BJ Talk 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

- I would suggest the company and some mention of it's products is notable, despite a lack of secondary sources at this time. The company provides employment to more than 125 people, and it's products are installed on all inhabited continents. As a company it is not significantly more or less notable than Aastra_Technologies. - Regarding the alleged 'sneaky and brazen' spam by company employees, rather than deleting the article, why not contact the offenders and educate them? I have recently done so, and suggested that instead of placing marketing material on the wiki, they place simple factual information about the company, and a light overview of it's products, and if people are interested commercially, to then allow them to view the company's website and see the marketing speak for themselves. They have followed my advice on this. If I am wrong, why not email them yourself and provide more correct advice? Karl2620 (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Contacting a contributor with a genuine attempt at education is somehow a bad thing?? A careful examination of the history brings one to the conclusion that the nomination is a result of the frustration of one editor who kept having content reverted, and without contacting or otherwise attempting to educate the offending contributors, has instead nominated the page for deletion. Why not instead let's look at the content? Maybe this revision here which was just prior to the unwashed at Epygi contributing to the article fits in with content guidelines a bit better? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.... Karl2620 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM According to history of this article, it was copied from a previously deleted article on July 8, 2007. Its most certainly advertising. A company officer placed this ad on this article's talk page here titled 'Dear Wiki Users.' How sneaky and brazen is that? Artene50 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - So what if the article was re-created from a deleted article? I was the one who wrote the original article, and halfway through drafting it, someone speedily deleted it because it wasn't notable. Gee, I hadn't even finished writing it. Just because it was deleted does not mean it is spam.
 * Aastra is 14 times the size by employees of this company and even their article has no sources. BJ Talk 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Bjweeks. This company fails WP:N. Karl, I would suggest that you should have left the company's obvious spamming on the article's talkpage instead of removing it here. It is indeed sneaky and brazen to post advertising on any article's talkpage on Wikipedia...and contacting an employee of this company only alerts them that their spamming is effective. WP:SPAM is not acceptable under any guise. Artene50 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is the debate for deletion of the page focusing on the behaviour of the company being described? I would suggest the company's behaviour, whilst certainly is in part spam, is mostly complete stupidity through ignorance. But that's not what is being discussed here.
 * I concur. That edit may have been more acceptable. Just no spam, please. Artene50 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Discussions of editor education and specific edits aside, it looks like other stuff exists is the primary (or maybe only) reason being advanced to keep this article. That seems to be trying to gloss over the appearance that the company is really not so notable: "[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I'm always willing to support an article if it can be shown there's a reason to keep it, but...I don't see it here. More independent sources (Infoworld reviews of one product aren't enough) would help.  Frank  |  talk  22:23, 22 June 2008 (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.