Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RHUB


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RHUB

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotion for non-notable company; article written by single purpose account who is the CTO of the company. Unable to find any significant coverage of this company. Articles on RHUB have been repeatedly put into Wikipedia by other SPAs and then deleted; see logs, , , and. Haakon (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep COI and neutrality issues aside, this company meets the notability requirements for WP, per Google News hits. Article needs work, but does not warrant deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to delete I now see the conflict of interest, and agree that this article should be deleted. If RHUB is notable enough, someone without a COI will write the article. As it stands, the editor is not following WP policies with WP:VERIFY, even with the userspace revamp. This article is not being created for WP or for the public, but instead only for the CTO of the company. Ergo it doesn't belong on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 429 Google hits, mostly to self-published press-releases, makes the company notable? Haakon (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ,, are a few articles that discuss RHUB. There are a ton of PR releases, but the company seems to be getting secondary press. It's not strong notability, marginal at best, but I believe it meets the threshhold. Angryapathy (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly those seem to be paid/press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. --Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest is not a valid reason to delete an article. I had already declined speedy deletion as the article contained what is potentially encyclopedic information (assuming there is any indication that the company is notable; if it clearly wasn't then I would have just changed it to a db-corp template). snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete History of spamming WP by former org. members with article removed (twice) as spam. A new group of SPAs using similar names now appear re-adding this article and promoting it on other articles.  Unless this article reflects neutrality (which it does not) and notability (which is marginal), recommend deletion. Calltech (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, yet another tech business, and unambiguous advertising: Soon the two founders found that the market needed an appliance solution for web conferencing to facilitate deployment, improve security and eliminate monthly subscription costs to end users. After several rounds of trials and errors, they settled down the hardware selection --- an embedded Linux-based communication device, which is not only reliable but also cost effective and consumes less than 4.5 watts power. In the same year when the product was shipped to the market, it was recognized as one of "2007 Tech Innovators Finalists". Let's put some teeth in it! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to delete, it is clear I don't need to spend any time on this subject. Please remove my article.


 * Follow up I feel I am obligated to share some thoughts through this frustrating experience with Wikipedia from my first article. I do this not to beg you to restore my article. I am done with it and I had attached too much unnecessary emotion and time to it. I do it simply because I love this community. (I have been one of donors to appreciate the values to me as a reader.) I hate to see it heads to a wrong direction.

What is the real value of this community? It is the knowledge sharing! Yes, you do need to excise rules to ensure the quality and I fully respect it. However, the whole debates with you indicate the core value of this community is forgetting. I have asked repeatedly to help me on my article, the merit of my work to the readers. But I have not received a single word from any of you during the entire debate. So it appears to me that rules are in the first place and knowledge is secondary, in a distant secondary place.

Also, it is frustrating to see instead of honoring people’s honesty and dignity, the debate takes advantage of it. I tell the truth of my motivation and explain how the mistakes have been made. That has been taken into the debates everywhere loudly and I look like a stupid spammer. Note that each author has their own motivation, good or bad. Do you have to look into their motivation in order to validate the knowledge, the core value, to share? Why does motivation really matter after all?

Please stay with the core value of this community --- the knowledge sharing.

Best wishes to Wikipedia. Jmao1 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI The following is part of an article by Daya Baran at November 23, 2009

"Volunteers have been departing Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” faster than new ones have been joining. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors. One of the reasons is that Wikipedia contributors have been debating widely what is behind the declines in volunteers.

....

Many volunteers are leaving because they feel as Wikipedia ages many rules have sprung up and it is less freewheeling and collaborative and more like a traditional organization with hierarchy and rules."

RULES! RULES!! RULES!!! We are lost in those fuzzy and double standard rules.

Jmao1 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is ranked 6th in the world (alexa rankings) and has 11,075,028 users (as of this post). Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site for their own profit or adjenda. This this is the case here. It is also true that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia, but are here for your own comercial and financial adjenda (ie RHUB). Perhaps you see your contributions as some sort of "volunteering", or helping wikipedia out in some way. I would hate to think that your adjenda and "Wikipedias rules" interfered somehow with your marketing attempts. --Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jmao1 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Jmao1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I got the number from clicking Angryapathy's "Google News hits" link. I see that there are better search terms to use, but none of them yield the kind of significant third-party coverage needed to be cited by encyclopedia articles such as on Wikipedia. I also think your comment is a strong self-indictment and should be taken into consideration by the closing admin. You are specifically not the best person to write the article, since you have a fundamental conflict of interest. Moreover you indicate that your efforts are driven by analysis of the promotional effect of Wikipedia articles, and that driving traffic to your company's website is specifically your goal. Haakon (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote RHUB Communications, Inc. Accounts used for promotion are strongly discouraged, and as such have Unintended Consequences. Your contributions to wikipedia under Jmao1 and the multitude of meatpuppets you've admitedly paid to Seed wikipedia with RHUB related articles, is considered  WP:Spam.
 * RHUB Communications, Inc article spam
 * User:Jadore126/RHUB Communications
 * User:Jmao1
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Jadore126/RHUB Communications
 * User:Jmao1
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete; non-notable Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Also this is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review my response in the above for the spam accusation. Jmao1 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this have been mentioned without the previous deletions? snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Jmao1 removed the parts where he pointed out the desired promotional effect, so for prosperity, it can be read here. Haakon (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although there is a conflict of interest, this seems to be someone who understands that the previous versions were not suitable and has attempted to create something more appropriate. snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly seems to be less transparent than we were lead to believe. These two accounts are the same, =  and is responsible for the bulk of re-creations. Its clear the Jmao1 account was created after multiple article deletions under the Jadore126 account. Here is log data;
 * (Modified/shortened for readability)
 * 06:02, 22 November 2009 N RHUB ‎ (←Created page with '{{Infobox_Company | | company_name = RHUB |
 * 23:59, 16 November 2009 N Web conferencing appliance ‎ (←Created page with 'Web Conferencing Appliance
 * 23:50, 12 November 2009 . . RHUB Communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
 * 00:06, 12 November 2009 . . Rhub communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
 * 21:22, 9 November 2009 . . Rhub communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
 * 22:41, 6 November 2009 . . Web conferencing appliance (←Created page with 'A Web Conferencing Appliance
 * 20:17, 22 July 2009 . . RHUB Communications (←Created page with 'Rhub ''
 * None of the above re-creations were by a contract marketing firm as previously professed. Seems only this one version, potentialy might have been. While the user attempted to create something more appropriate, the omision of sock accounts and multiple recreations gives one pause.--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep there is some notability, although it is marginal. I think that the discussion about deletion should depend on the notability of the subject, and assuming it is notable, whether the content is appropriate (e.g. whether it is verifiable, and not defamatory or consisting of promotion without information), and should not depend on the motivation of the creator of the article. snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. In due course the company may become notable and a new article can be created then, meanwhile Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 28 November 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.