Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva Inc.


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nextiva Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for this company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary, passing mention, local, routine announcements and non reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * keep I don't see how, , or is a passing mention, local, or routine announcement. They look like indepth coverage on a reliable source to me. The article has 10 references, is well written, and the subject's well documented. I vote keep. CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed primary from the list, I have updates it now. As for those three sources: first is a blog where the company is talking about themselves, primary, not independent; second just mentions them in the intro then goes on to talk about the actual subject of the article which is not them, just a passing mention of them; third is about Gorny and just says about the company that Gorny "co-founder and chief executive of cloud-based communications provider Nextiva", that's it, just a passing mention. None give any depth of independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * keep – Some of the references are credible enough to support the article, most of which do not provide simple mentions of the said company. Moreover, I think the article can still be improved. Additional references such as this can be added to improve it. -- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 16:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the references are credible hey? Why'd you put the other ones in? Getting paid by cite count? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: At least three independent, reliable sources:
 * The Arizona Republic - Scottsdale firm Nextiva grows with VoIP technology
 * Phoenix Business Journal - Nextiva named fastest-growing tech firm in Arizona
 * Inc. (magazine) - Want a 500 Percent Annual Growth Rate? Build a Customer Service Culture
 * The article needs copyediting but that's no cause for a deletion. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Local coverage.
 * 2. Local blog.
 * 3. Industry mag with questionable independence. "(Disclosure: Nextiva has been a licensee of some of my written work.)" duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Was previously deleted at Nextiva after an afd flooded with socks. Posted at Nextiva Inc. to bypass scrutiny. Like this version, that was created by a paid editor, paid by someone who wants to use Wikipedia for advertising. From that afd, quoting DGG, "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia" Ignore all rules and delete spam to help improve Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreliable sources and mere mnotice. Inc 500 is fastest growing, usually because they are small and insigificant. Local business journals will print an article (or more likely a press release) about any local company and are therefore unreliable for notability. Local newspapers are similarly unreliable with local firms.  DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article is well referenced and the fact that it was previously deleted doesn't make it non-notable this time too. The sources mentioned have been used extensively in other articles. The chicagotribune.com has so many references pointing to its domain that the linksearch tool times out. A searchusing the Wikipedia search tools yields results north of 2,000. azcentral.com has also been extensively used to the tune of 5,000 plus times as a reliable source in the English Wikipedia alone and this sets a precedence for it. bizjournals.com is no small magazine either as a user mentioned earlier. It has more than 2,000 articles pointing to its domain for all the right reasons. Frost.com too follows suit and its has even been referenced from other language Wikipedias too as seen here. On this counts and unless there are other issues, I find that the subject has been covered pretty well by identifiable and reliable sources outside Wikipedia. The references I have mentioned as examples would have already been blacklisted as linkspam if they were not offering genuine and balanced coverage about subjects covered on Wikipedia. There is no one link that can be inserted on Wikipedia more than 3 times without being marked as linkspam for that matter. If it is the tone that is making the article promotional then it can always be toned down through wikification or by notifying the creator about it, otherwise I find that the article passes GNG and in fact not even a candidate for speedy deletion.  Kagundu Wanna Chat? 02:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In amongst that rubbish you've made some irrelevant and incorrect statements. You mostly focus on what sources have been used elsewhere. So what if other articles use them, they are not the ones being discussed here. Putting aside the OTHERSTUFF aspect, let's look at an example, the last source you defend. Frost & Sullivan. Regardless of it use elsewhere, the particular source used here, as clearly seen from it's url ( http://ww2.frost.com/news /press-releases/frost-sullivan-applauds-nextivas-impressive-customer-service-achieved-through-excellent-employee-and-client-management-strategie/) is a press release. Utterly useless for any consideration of appropriate coverage for WP:CORP. Another example, Chicago Tribune has only a passing mention, no depth of coverage, also no good for WP:CORP. You also state "There is no one link that can be inserted on Wikipedia more than 3 times without being marked as linkspam for that matter." That is a complete falsehood. And "The references I have mentioned as examples would have already been blacklisted as linkspam if they were not offering genuine and balanced coverage about subjects covered on Wikipedia." More bullshit. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly exercise some decorum duffbeerforme as per WP:CIVIL.I also understand why you are somehow angry at the message I posted. I agree that the frost & sulivan reference doesn't carry much weight since it is explicitly categorized as a press release. The mentions you allege are what is indeed stated in the article and not anything non-factual or promotional for that matter. There are other references by Deloitte, Carbonfund, bizjournals, Azcentral that back up all the information provided therein.And an additional one which I found after a simple google search that even the author left out is inc.com. All the articles in the websites under references sections have a coverage about Nextiva. Kagundu Wanna Chat? 08:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I declined a speed delete request that was based on this Articles for deletion/Nextiva result, because the article was already here and wasn't snowing. Might as well finish up here rather than G4 it. No position on the merits. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2015 (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.