Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ericom Software


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ericom Software

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

Not notable (spam). I tagged this article twice for notability and Pitvipper removed the tag both times. The references and links given are obvious adverts for the company and not really proper news items in reliable sources (even if the Butler group could be considered reliable these particular links are to ad-type promotional write ups). The most notable thing is that it was the 46th fastest expanding technology company in Israel in 2005 and grew by 65% in that year (65% from what it doesn't say). I also tagged this article for SPAM and although some of the advert language has been removed by Pitvipper (along with the tag) it is still obviously non-encyclopedic and I cannot see with the references given how this could become encyclopedic, it has had plenty of opportunity. Polargeo (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, obvious advertising for a non-consumer software firm: software for enterprise-wide application access for server-based computing environments, in other words, you probably aren't going to find this on the shelves at Best Buy. Blurby, obvious ad-speak -- Ericom comes to market with Desktop Virtualization and Presentation Virtualization solutions that are simple to implement, have a small footprint and are extremely cost-effective -- if it's obvious advertising, lawyering over notability is beside the point, but I would note that it would appear to be referenced only to trade websites with limited readership and reach. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete "De-adverting" the article and removing the POV left me with two sentences. There might be a valid claim to notability with the award the company has won, but at a bare minimum this needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletebut not speedy; if the company were notable there would be enough that could be rescued to form a stub article. I removed the speedy tag. DGG (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I made significant changes/deletions to the content in this article to bring it in compliance. Note that Butler Group is a well respected IT analyst firm and they have repeatedly covered this company.  The Butler write-ups cannot be accessed on their site as their clients buy them for thousands of dollars.  Microsoft holds Ericom in high regard and references them on the home page of one of their key technologies.  Ericom was the first product to be certified for a strategic Microsoft technology, this is a major accomplishment. Also this company has been covered by major IT publications, such as eWeek, Information Week and Healthcare IT News.  These are not advertisements, they are solid news articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitvipper (talk Pitvipper (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification on the Butler write-ups, that actually explains quite a bit. I restored the AfD tag, as there isn't yet a consensus to close this discussion as a speedy keep or speedy close - typically AfD discussions run the full seven days even if a clear consensus forms to keep or delete before then. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pitvipper. But please take note. Maybe if you had provided better references and removed the huge amount of advertising jargon, which filled the entire article, instead of removing the notability and spam tags twice then this wouldn't have been an AfD debate. This debate should run its course though and I don't prejudge the outcome. It looks like you still think the way to solve things is removing the tags as you removed the AfD tag. Polargeo (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Polargeo, let's keep this professional and courteous. You can easily see that I did delete much of the content in the article with which you had an issue, per your suggestion.  I thought those changes would bring the article into compliance and hence removed the tags.  Per my comments above, this company is notable in that they have breakthrough technology, a unique partnership with Microsoft, have been covered by a top IT analyst, have been covered by editors of top IT trade magazines. 96.56.217.34 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pitvipper, you seem to be an employee of Ericom Software and so I know you have a job to do. However, if you had addressed the tags why did three other editors look at the article and suggest deletion. The answer is simple, you didn't address the tags but simply removed as little text as you thought you could get away with along with the tags, you did this twice and then you even removed the AfD tag. Now if you can comply with wikipedia guidelines and prove that the company is notable, as the tags were trying to assist you in doing, then great but please try to follow and respect consensus. Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not make any assumptions about my status with this company. I did more than simply "remove as little text...". I removed MOST of the text in the article, explained misunderstandings about some of the anlayst comments and added another Microsoft reference. For your information, none of the text that was removed was actually written by me, it was all taken directly from quotes in IT analyst reviews and trade journals, and frankly is quite relevant for this technology sector. This company is a leader in their field and I can provide you with many more third-party references.96.56.217.34 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An industry magazine can still get its stories straight from company press releases. If the quotes are obviously complete ad speak and unencyclopedic it really doesn't matter where they come from we cannot build an encyclopedic article on them. A reliable source still needs to give the company significant coverage, if this coverage is obviously dominantly promotional in nature then the question arises as to how neutral and reliable the source is and how much the source is repeating company PR. Please find good sources which give not just glowing, promotional stories but give real unbiased facts about the company and then I'm sure this article will not be deleted. I am afraid I can do little else but assume you are employed by Ericom because you have been on wikipedia for two years and done little else but advertise Ericom so please do not act hurt. Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added two more independent analyst reviews of this company's technology and also referenced the company's stock ticker as they are a public company.Pitvipper (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google News shows significant coverage by reliable secondary sources:
 * http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/sco-push-web-services-ericom-alliance-815
 * http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/server_virtualization/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207801422
 * http://events.sys-con.com/node/642398
 * http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13016776_ITM
 * http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Array-Ericom-Team-Up-Against-Citrix/ — Rankiri (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All techy/business articles obviously originating from press releases either from Ericom or SCO who have 'teamed up' with Ericom (quotes in articles are all from various members of Ericom or SCO). I'm not saying this is definitely not notable but I would hope that we could apply better standards. I'm probably wrong though. Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Polargeo, there are seveal articles that obviously do not originate from press releases, nor do they have any quotes from Ericom or one of their partners. These are in the Ericom article: (http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Reviews/Ericom-PowerTerm-WebConnect-Challenges-Citrixs-XenApp-on-Desktop-Virtualization/) that is obviously a product review, or this article (http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2008/07/03/who-s-missing-what-a-checklist-of-what-each-vendor-needs-to-get-to-vdi-by-2010.aspx) which is a review from a noted analyst. In reference to your comment about other articles originating from Press Releases, these publications receive thousands of Releases a week and cover only those that they deem to be notable. Pitvipper (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the publications choose to cover certain PR's over others, press releases are not reliable coverage. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's why I highlighted articles and product reviews that did not originate from PR Pitvipper (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further on the topic of PR, while it's understood that Press Releases are not reliable coverage, however, when major trade publications write articles based on that PR, that is reliable coverage. In addition, I am reiterating that there has been significant coverage that was not PR based. Pitvipper (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (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.