Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reitek


 * 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, doubtful notability and clear conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reitek

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As if it was not obvious, the author, User:Webreitek has told me by e-mail that he works in the marketing department of Reitek S.p.A. Clear COI. Is the company notable? -- RHaworth (Talk


 * Comment The company may (barely) be notable, but the only sources I'm seeing are PR repeaters - and press releases are not independent sources. The company has a website, but again - not an independent source. If news articles or independent coverage (a product review, perhaps?) can be found, then this subject may warrant a stub. The timeline, glossary (!) and non-english, non-sourced quotes (including the one about Youtube) would need to go. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, Reitek was already quoted into the Computer Telephony Integration article, close to most famous names as Avaya, Siemens and Cisco: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Telephony_Integration and this is a fact of indipendent Wikipedia source and market co-leadership in this industry.

Press resources are all from indipendent journals and magazines, included the one (quoted) about Youtube (Corriere delle Comunicazioni 2007): it's even one of the same press sources cited by Dylogic.

Again, the timeline is very similar to Dylogic's one. And sorry but I can't see any glossary :-)

P.S. obviously, the company has a website. Like all the other companies' articles on Wikipedia.

P.P.S. and what about the external links? 18:32 15 November (UTC+1)

I beg your pardon but I'm not able to understand HTML language like: Steps to list an article for deletion 1. 2. 3. 4. —Preceding unsigned comments added by Webreitek (talk • contribs)


 * Comment. My search of Google, among other places, turned up only Press Releases and the company's website. I acknowledge that most every company has a website, and that's good - but, we can't use information from the website unless it's confirmed independently. The press comments included (bottom section) in this article might be suitable, but there are no links to verify that the sources of the quotes are indeed independent sources. Unfortunately, we can't use the Italian Wikipedia as a source, for the same reason that they can't use us. Do you have links or, at a minimum, publication dates and information (volume and issue, ISSN, etc)? By Glossary, I referred to the list of related terms under See Also - that list should be condensed and moved to the end of the article. The timeline information should be conensed and either mentioned as a milestone in the text of the article, or deleted. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ultraexactzz, I did not understand some senteces but now it's more clear. Thank you for your advices:

The External links section now indipendently confirms informations, as all the press resources (with details about number of volume, page and journal website as you suggested). I've shortened the "See also" list and moved it to the bottom, and I've also condensed the timeline. This article is very short: do you know if it's possible to not use the small Index box? Thank you. 15:53 16 Novembre (UTC+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webreitek (talk • contribs) 14:56, 16 November 2007 (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.