Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paessler (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Paessler (2nd nomination)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Anton555a (creator, SPA) with no rationale. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Last year this was AfD by User:DGG, but kept (I was not pinged, and I missed that AfD). Unfortunately, the sources presented there do not seem to be very helpful. User:CorporateM provided to links to Networked World - but they are not about company, but its products (and notability is not inherited). User:TYelliot provided another product review irrelevant here, and one on-topic ref , but it is mostly a listing of the company's products; the "in-depth" coverage of the company itself is 2 paragraphs, including a sentence "the company is not one of the bigger names in network monitor applications." The other ref added by the creator is, and it reads like a press release, complete with 50% of the content being a lenghty quote from company's CEO. I don't see what would make us keep this entry here; it is just a minor business with no reasons for being encyclopedic. Please keep in mind encyclopedia is not a business directory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Network World material is essentially a press release, at least as I read it,, where he president of the company is allowed to say whatever he wants to say, without analysis. Unfortunately, even well known trade magazines do that--there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it--they make a convenient source for people looking for information who just need to know what the producer says about it. But that doesn't make them a RS for anything but the incontestable facts, and it certainly doesn't make them a RS for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This in-depth competitive review cannot credibly be compared to a press release repost. The article specifically says that the editor obtained the product itself and tested it in a lab environment. It includes a description of their testing methodology. The source is almost 7,000 words long. For technology, to get a copy of the tech itself and have experts from a credible publication test it in a lab environment - this the most reliable form of independent fact-checking available and is far superior to most press sources that are just repeating what they were told by bias parties. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:CorporateM: I do not dispute it is a reliable source. For the product of that company. It does not discuss the company itself. Can you see the difference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just addressing that specific point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a tricky one as there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the company around, but its main product appears to be notable. It might be best to refactor it to be about PRTG Network Monitor (or merge with an undeleted version of that article), for which independent sources exist (although they're not the most convincing):, , , , . --Michig (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am the founder and CEO of Paessler. May I bring up some facts so the people here can make a decision about the notability/deletion/rewrite based on facts, not assumptions. Paessler is the vendor of the PRTG Network Monitor product that 150.000 customers all over the world use 24/7 every day. Gartner recently listed Paessler in its Magic Quandrant for "Network Performance Monitoring and Diagnostics" https://www.paessler.com/blog/2016/04/20/monitoring-news/prtg-included-in-the-gartner-magic-quadrant. Just last week German IT magazine Funkschau wrote in a lab-based review: "Over the years Paessler has succeeded in setting the standard for IT monitoring" ("Mit den Jahren ist es dem Nürnberger Unternehmen Paessler gelungen, den Standard für IT-Monitoring zu setzen.", Article is not yet available online). Paessler has 160 employees and was awarded with the "great place to work award for best employer" twice (#21 in Germany) http://www.greatplacetowork.de/beste-arbeitgeber/landes-und-regionalwettbewerbe/1284 and the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 award http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/TMT-Fast50-Gewinner-Technology-Fast50-2014.pdf. The Spiceworks community has rated PRTG as "preferred by IT Pros" https://community.spiceworks.com/reviews/15779-paessler-prtg-network-monitor. Paessler and PRTG were awarded multiple awards by Network Computing https://www.paessler.com/blog/network-computing-awards-2016. Local newspaper report about Paessler http://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg/software-fur-einsatz-in-antarktis-und-industrie-1.3988406?searched=true. Maybe this helps DirkPaessler (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:DirkPaessler - thank you for the sources (and disclosing the WP:COI). Since I appreciate you respecting our discussion enough to participate in it yourself, with a said disclosure and sources, which is very rare (usually we deal with anonymous for-hire PR hacks who don't bother to talk back at all, just go on to create another problematic entry under another anonymous throw-away account), let me address your points one by one (I've spent about half an hour reviewing your sources and writing the following):
 * "Paessler is the vendor of the PRTG Network Monitor product that 150.000 customers all over the world use 24/7 every day." There has never been a consensus as to factors such as volume of sales, number of employees, or such when it comes to establish notability of the company (mostly because there are no reliable benchmarks for most industries).
 * "Gartner recently listed Paessler in its Magic Quandrant for "Network Performance Monitoring and Diagnostics" https://www.paessler.com/blog/2016/04/20/monitoring-news/prtg-included-in-the-gartner-magic-quadrant" Setting aside the fact that the source is your own blog, so WP:SELFPUBLISHED, there is no consensus on what awards make a company notable (again, there are hundrend of thousands of minor awards around the world, and Gartner's Magic Quandrant award is not a household name). In such cases we default to WP:GNG, which roughly asks: did the fact that Foo-award was presented to Boo-entity generated any independent coverage? Which doesn't seem to be the case here (in other words, unless a reliable source comments on the fact that Paessler received "Gartner's Magic Quandrant" award or mention, it doesn't help us in establishing notability.
 * "Just last week German IT magazine Funkschau wrote in a lab-based review: "Over the years Paessler has succeeded in setting the standard for IT monitoring" ("Mit den Jahren ist es dem Nürnberger Unternehmen Paessler gelungen, den Standard für IT-Monitoring zu setzen.", Article is not yet available online)." We would need a proper citation (offline sources are ok). Then we should discuss whether Funkschau magazine is a reliable source, and check the article for whether the coverage is in-depth. If all they wrote about your company is one sentence, well, it seems just like the case with the Networked World article about one of your products I discuss above: it may be a good source for an article about your product, but does not help in establishing notability of your company (please also see why notability cannot be inherited between entities, such as father and son, or company and its product).
 * "Paessler has 160 employees" - as I mentioned, size is irrelevant. Is 160 a lot of a few? How are we supposed to know?
 * "Paessler... was awarded with the "great place to work award for best employer" twice (#21 in Germany) http://www.greatplacetowork.de/beste-arbeitgeber/landes-und-regionalwettbewerbe/1284 and the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 award http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/TMT-Fast50-Gewinner-Technology-Fast50-2014.pdf." See comment above about whether award or mention attracted attention of independent sources. The sources you give come from the organizations presenting an award, so they fail at WP:PRIMARY (again: someone besides the giver and the recipient has to care).
 * " The Spiceworks community has rated PRTG as "preferred by IT Pros" https://community.spiceworks.com/reviews/15779-paessler-prtg-network-monitor." Just like above.
 * "Paessler and PRTG were awarded multiple awards by Network Computing https://www.paessler.com/blog/network-computing-awards-2016". Ditto.
 * "Local newspaper report about Paessler http://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg/software-fur-einsatz-in-antarktis-und-industrie-1.3988406?searched=true." There is no consensus on whether strictly local reporting suffices for what is an international encyclopedia, but it also means it is not discarded without a review, which unfortunately I cannot do as I do not speak German. I will say that it does not appear that Nordbayern has an entry on English or German wikis, which suggests it is a very minor outlet. If a German speaker can comment on whether this report is in-depth about Paessler the company, and not just about a product (like other sources provided so far), and on source reliability, this could constitute the best source we have seen here so far (IMHO). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links, certainly nothing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  07:26, 19 June 2016 (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.