Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirvanix


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvanix

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

References and links are directly connected with a product that is not a Nirvanix product or service (please see awards reference). Focus should be on Nirvanix and their cloud storage platform rather then information that is slanderous and manipulated.


 * Legal threat (albeit implied rather than explicit) reported. Puppetmaster warned; users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding. MediaMob (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvanix company profile should read:

Nirvanix is the premier “Cloud Storage” platform provider. Nirvanix has built a global cluster of storage nodes collectively referred to as the Storage Delivery Network (SDN), powered by the Nirvanix Internet Media File System (IMFS). The SDN intelligently stores, delivers and processes storage requests in the best network location, providing the best user experience in the marketplace. With the ability to store multiple file copies in multiple geographic nodes, the SDN enables unparalleled data availability for developers, businesses and enterprises. The Nirvanix SDN is optimized to handle very large files and enables any consumer or enterprise Web application to scale instantly, meeting the demands for storing and delivering millions of files from video and audio to documents and backup files worldwide. By using the Nirvanix SDN, versus alternatives such as adding network storage systems or using first generation online storage platforms, businesses are guaranteed a shorter time-to-market, reduced costs, and also benefit from better flexibility and control for their operations. In addition to its superior network and storage technologies, Nirvanix works to maintain its outstanding reputation with its customers with unparalleled developer and 7x24 enterprise support. Founded in 2007, Nirvanix is a privately held company headquartered in San Diego, California and backed by world-class investors including Intel Capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdude89 (talk • contribs) — Yellowdude89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Nominator (Yellowdude89) is a suspected proven sock puppet (Suspected_sock_puppets/Mharvey23), who appears to be Nirvanix's PR contact, Matthew Harvey (Head of JPR Research and Web 2.0 Expansion, JPR Communications). MediaMob (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Charlie Jackson, a company investor, apparently stated The C investor allowed a spin-out to be done, and the new company was allowed to take the name MediaMax and the consumer customers, but no software, no servers, no data. The front-end software was licensed to the spin-out, but for a limited time. Steve Iverson took over this company, while the existing company, with all the servers and data, was re-named Nirvanix. Virtually all the employees stayed with Nirvanix.. MediaMob (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as content is well referenced and appears to accurately reflect the contents of those referneces. Suspected Proven sock has vandalised the article (blanked) after suspected proven puppetmaster blanked it twice. MediaMob (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Article was tagged under construction at the time of the nomination, having been created in good faith by someone independent of Nirvanix, their competitors, users, etc. The slanderous and manipulated information is well referenced. MediaMob (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Whatever that thing at the top of the AfD is, it isn't a well-formed AfD nom. I don't know what this is, but it smells like some unfathomable mix of spam, meat and old socks. Certainly not an appropriate candidate for AfD, nor an article that's in a state where AfD is an appropriate response. If you have provable libels, then speedy it. If you don't, then stay quiet. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Well-sourced article on a notable subject, plus the nom smells of bad faith. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator (Yellowdude89) is a proven sock puppet of Mharvey23 and has been blocked indefinitely. MediaMob (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and Close article was still in the creation process when it was nominated. No doubt that the nom is in bad faith and that the nom is attempting to do a PR job. I would however, like to suggest that the article be looked at closer and perhaps add some good stuff about the company in (if it exists) to help ensure the neutrality of the piece. No offence at all intended but, to me at least it does look a little bit like an axe to grind sort of thing (with the article only being created after they lost this data and such). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the article was created in good faith - I have no connection with any of these companies, nor their competitors, and I have never used any of their services. Nonetheless I've added some good stuff about the company per your suggestion. MediaMob (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV isn't achieved by adding equal quantities of "good stuff" to balance the bad stuff! Neutrality and objectivity isn't at all the same thing as being equally wrong on both sides. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you implying the article isn't neutral or that some/all of the good/bad stuff is wrong? A list of pro's without con's (and vice versa) is not neutral so provided content is verifiably accurate then I'd tend to agree with Jasynnash2 - the article is now certainly more neutral than it was. MediaMob (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think Jasynnash means that Yellowdude's creating this AfD is in bad faith, as part of PR work to keep negative info about the company from being published at all. I would, however, presume that the sock doesn't grasp how things work here and is attempting to treat this site as a PR outlet and not an online encyclopedia.  The term "bad faith" might be a little excessive, strictly speaking. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yes the bad faith thing is all about the nomination of the article in the first place. I never meant to imply in anyway that MediaMob had anything but, the best intentions when creating the article and was only trying to point out that it may look otherwise to some people. Neither, did I say it had to have "equal" amounts of anything just that it could use some balancing of somesor to avoid being (or appearing to be) an "attack" page. Sorry, if my wording isn't always clear. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ...per User:Jasynnash2 and User:EdJohnston Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know this already but, you need to Could you please expand on your "keep" statement providing somesort of policy/guideline reasoning? Thank you. in the same way any potential "delete" voter should expand on their comments. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pinged Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) on his talk page. MediaMob (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The statement by nominator Yellowdog89 does not offer any Wikipedia policy grounds under which the article should be deleted. If he believes that the article is slanted or contains wrong information, he should address this on the article's Talk page, not at AfD. I don't see the nominator's statement above as sufficient grounds to block anyone for a legal threat, but I do notice that Yellowdog89 has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet. Since User:Mharvey23 was only blocked 12 hours, I hope he will rejoin the discussion here after his block expires. Nobody from the company has yet engaged in any discussion at Talk:Nirvanix, which is the right place to discuss fixing the article if that is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * keep per EdJohnston and MediaMob. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per EdJohnston. We are not going to turn a perfectly good Wikipedia article into an advertisement. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is well sourced. Any negative statement has an inline reference. If only more articles were this clean. Proposed text screams advertisement. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. I am an official with Nirvanix, Inc. To elaborate we have proposed this "article" for deletion based on two main points. 1. Wikipedia's own rules of Verifiability found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Specifically, various pieces of information in this article have been found to be false as can be verified as such by source deemed appropriate by Wikipedia rules. Of note in Wikipedia rules include: "Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." 2. This entire article references such sources deemed questionable and is written by individuals violating another Wikipedia rule under "What Wikipedia Is Not". "Wikipedia is not a soapbox ...Scandal mongering or gossip columns..." This article is being used in conjunction with outside sites to inflict harm on the company based on these questionable sources. An example of this is: http://nirvanix.nfshost.com/ This is not in the spirit and intent of Wikipedia to inform, educate and record. Final point is that "Nirvanix" is a trademarked name. The company has attempted numerous times to post, more interestingly, less about the company and more about its technology, The Storage Delivery Network and has been denied each time. We have modeled this exactly after our competitor, Amazon and its Simple Storage Service (S3) so as to use a model that was deem fit for Wikipedia to no avail. At this point, we would rather simply delete. User:Jwbuck (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Buckley, Chief Marketing Officer at Nirvanix is Jwbuck (according to this edit) and has been warned about WP:COI by Orangemike.
 * Noting that "Nirvanix is a trademarked name" could imply that Nirvanix intends to use this to have the article deleted (were that even possible) so they have been warned about WP:LEGAL too.
 * Article's 16 'questionable sources' include PC Magazine, DEMO, Tech Crunch, The Industry Standard, Ars Technica, IDG News Service, Network World and even Nirvanix's own blog.
 * The article was written in good faith, completely independently of Nirvanix, Streamload, MediaMax, The Linkup, their suppliers, competitors, creditors and users, and certainly not in conjunction with outside sites (http://nirvanix.nfshost.com/) nor to inflict harm on the company.
 * Nirvanix representatives were invited to contribute at Talk:Nirvanix by User:EdJohnston and are still welcome to do so (indeed they have copied this blurb there and Orangemike has explained "We do genuinely want to be fair to your firm, and yet at the same time we must hold to our own standards". MediaMob (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments; also this should be speedily closed per WP:SNOW and because the nomination - initiated by a proven sock - is a clear case of WP:COI and WP:POINT. Coldmachine Talk 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vote is one-sided, suggesting that Keep will be the final result. I suggest keeping this open another 24 hours in case the Nirvanix people want to respond further. Discussion is good. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as this AfD should have been deleted already (db-banned) and the only delete vote (which should itself be discounted) is from the same guys who nominated it in the first place (a blatent WP:COI too I might add). I'm surprised this debate has survived this long given WP:SNOW... but at least the article will be somewhat 'immunized' against deletion after this as they appear to have done a fairly good job of keeping it under wraps (aka getting away with murder) until now.. 193.253.141.64 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 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.