Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nefsis


 * 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. For me this was a difficult case. The nominator & those concurring with him all argued to the letter of the deletion criteria, an issue made no easier by the fact made a persuasive counter-argument -- who also argued the letter of the deletion criteria. So what I looked at were the following: (1) Does the article clearly express notability for about its subject? For technology related businesses, this would include things like market share, innovative technology, & whether its key employees were notable enough to transfer notability to this company. I saw no proof of this in the article. (2) Does the article tell the reader anything that she/he could not learn from the company's website? (Some borderline companies never had a website, so in those cases the burden of proof must lie on the nominator.) After comparing this article to that website, I found the answer to be no. I am closing this discussion based on these points, as well as an overwhelming majority in favor of its deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nefsis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As far as I can tell, every single source here is simply churnalism. None of it appears to be proper, thorough, independent analysis of this me-too product. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nefsis Basic provides two-way video conferencing, collaboration and VoIP with business-grade security capabilities and is targeted to consultants, freelancers, and entrepreneurs who work from a small office or home office. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble finding the content policy WP:PROVIDESTWOWAYVIDEOCONFERENCNGSERVICES which exempts an article from the requirement for reliable, independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another back-office online videoconferencing business, one of many, with no showing of the sort of significant impact on history, technology, or culture of the kind that would make it an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above, including the keep-vote. Guy, thank you for teaching me a new word: Churnalism. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 20-Mule-Team Delete: Well, there are a powerful heap of sources here, pardners. And all the media ones regurgitations of the same press releases ... sorta like a colicky cayuse.  Fails WP:RS, WP:ORG.   Ravenswing  20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Re/ reliable, independent sources, the Chicago Tribune is reliable. Ditto Arizona Republic, eWeek, InfoWeek, ReadWriteWeb and others. The earlier citations did indeed cover similar product-related material, but Chicago Tribune and Arizona Republic covered different customers’ use of the technology and are unique articles. Chicago Tribune doesn't do churnalism. I, too, learned a new word . Re/ noteworthiness for an encyclopedia subject, the Nefsis online service [WiredRed Corporation] was recognized by Frost & Sullivan in 2009 for applying cloud computing and parallel processing to video conferencing. The first application of cloud computing to video conferencing is noteworthy. This has a significant impact on industry and millions of video conferencing users as a generational change from on-premise switching equipment to shared resources in the cloud. --Pixelizer (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Pixelizer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - According to WP:RS the page has sources that are "reliable published sources" and the content included is factual. --Karebear 1022 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - According to WP:RS the page has sources that are "reliable published sources" and the content included is factual. --Karebear 1022 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC) <--agreed with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.194.111 (talk)
 * Keep per WP:DEL Reasons #5 and 6. Look at News: sourcing is not impossible. Multiple independent sources exist and coverage is not trivial. First of all, the nomination reason is just wrong. There is one source title very similar to another, but after looking through five sources in a Google News search and in the article, I gave up trying to find another copy. This amounts to little more than a chance for the nominator to use this new word in a sentence.
 * Nomination is every bit as pre-fab and insubstantial as it purports the article to be. A neologism as rationale, a subjective: "proper", and an IDONTLIKE: "me-too product". The only words in the whole nomination that bear any relation to WP rules are 'source' and 'independent'. Anyone who wants to change RS knows where to go: multiple copies is not even a rule, much less an actual problem with this article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - while there is some coverage in third-party sources here, they're not reliable sources; most just seem to be blogs and press-release recyclers. The coverage in reliable sources, such as the Chicago Tribune and Arizona Republic, isn't significant enough to count for our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources are not notable. The Chigago Tribune source is a very brief passing mention. Cloudbook is simply a directory. Many of the other sources are simply press releases, and many others are personal blogs. Of all the links I clicked, there is not a single source in any of the 18 listed that passes the notability guidelines.  None of the sources meet the 'depth of criteria' and 'independence of sources' guidelines as found in WP:ORG. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is nothing more than an advertisement for a non-notable company masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Agree with Ukexpat above. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, sourcing doesn't show notability even under lax standards.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:20, 17 March 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.