Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpliVity


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

SimpliVity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A typical promotional article. covered by Forbes for recruitment and typical investment press. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Light2021 (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  13:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  13:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - reads like an advertisement, non-notable, and although I recognize the article must have looked much better before this discussion, I would even speedy G11 it. RafChem (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * leaning Delete per nom - provided sources are mostly funding rounds and blogs, lacking in WP:CORPDEPTH. Basic WP:BEFORE turns up mostly press releases and stories based on those press releases for me, nothing actually about the company and little evidence it's ever been organically newsworthy - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ORGDEPTH. No indication the company is notable for anything other than getting funding. At best WP:TOOSOON at worst SEO/PROMO. J bh  Talk  14:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete refs provided do not get close to establishing notability. A recent "improvement" to the techno-babble, didn't improve things  Velella  Velella Talk 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources, with those sources verifying this company is "a pioneer" and "well-known" in its market. Some starter samples:
 * Computer Weekly:
 * + Simplivity debuts all-flash CN-5400-F hyper-converged product - quote: "SimpliVity was a pioneer – along with Nutanix – of so-called hyper-converged infrastructure, which combines compute, storage and networking in one box."
 * + Theme park company rides with Simplivity hyper-converged
 * The Register:
 * + SimpliVity sheds staff, rattles tin for another $100m from investors
 * + Simplivity delivers storage quadruplets: Meet all-flashery and better DR
 * + Sweating Springpath fails to defuse SimpliVity's patent bomb
 * + SimpliVity slips Hyper-V into its hyper-converged party
 * EWeek:
 * + How SimpliVity Became Model for 'Silicon Valley' TV Startup
 * + SimpliVity Adds All-Flash System to Hyperconverged Lineup
 * Wall Street Journal:
 * + Cisco Broadens Moves in Cloud, ‘Hyperconverged’ Systems By Don Clark, Assistant news editor - A minor mention, but does support the more substational sources - quote: "Another well-known early entrant is SimpliVity Corp., which also reached a private valuation of $1 billion."
 * I'm not seeing anything relevant from the delete !votes so far, beyond WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. Now the personal-view based CHURNALSIM! CHURNALSIM!  [sic] cries can start --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You do not need to comment about others. Keep your argument to the topic. as per references, did you really read them or got copy and paste from whatever big media links you found? have you really gone to what actually they have covered? are you actually building a case or going to every article of AfD with keep votes and commenting on others working style? your way of analyzing and discussing I am unable to understand. Pardon me if I said something wrong here. some of them are :

Antony Adshead only write about this company in Computer weekly, where they cover tech related blogs or PR in huge quantity. SimpliVity sheds staff, rattles tin for another $100m from investors Simplivity delivers storage quadruplets: Meet all-flashery and better DR " This article reads like product description" Chris Mellor : Covers all article for this company Sweating Springpath fails to defuse SimpliVity's patent bomb Cisco Broadens Moves in Cloud, ‘Hyperconverged’ Systems : is it really about this one? Specialized media coverage and non-notable discussions are nothing but promotional and intentional by company and no one else.

Or should be keep all those article as Wikipedia? are you defending Wikipedia or want to make it another PR company. This definitely not a news paper, where they covers daily operations or launch or ti-ips or funding. Can you write the " The most significant, impactful, and life changing aspect of this company" by your own analysis, or is it just another company related to technology? there are thousands of tech company in every nation in the world. there are already a directory for them, or local coverage. Why the Wikipedia article is needed to such company if they are not even Encyclopedic notable?Light2021 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing anything to make me reconsider my keep !vote.  If you have some specific evidence for your currently unsupported claims, then please do provide it here!  Without any evidence it is extremely hard to take your case seriously.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you are not even reading what I am writing or others are writing. There are no proof of notability we can find for this one, as I wrote above if you have found something, can you mention as you have the confidence that this is notable. "The most significant impact, and life changing aspect of this company" You need to give the evidence. Merely presence of article is not proof. or you can keep writing the same thing without even giving any substantial writing. That is what we are discussing here!Light2021 (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete instead as both still questionable for the needing convincing and then PR advertising concerns. The sources above are still in fact advertising what the company would say about itself, such as the fact the headers are not only company quotes, but so is the information (literally every listed source is, including the one which is apparently labeled as the best, actually then goes to company specifics and its services which also then states its history!), therefore now moving to the company-supplied information such as literally the specifics about its services and company, shows the PR alone. Simply stating that the company was "a pioneer and known" is still not convincing if the article would only be an advertisement, something we should take seriously. Another note is literally the fact the article is currently still a thin and unconvincing advertisement along with the fact several quickly coming and going accounts have been involved with this one article, which shows and confirms the fact the company is avid about PR. Therefore there are still in fact signs of churnalism, no matter what is mentioned, because of the blatant fact of company PR information being casually added to these supposed "news". Continuing with the article history here and here, seriously, it shows the sheerness of advertising being added then removed, only to have a few "apparently new" accounts come and add it again, removed and then added again, it's a damn advertisement and a blatantly persistent one at that therefore we make no compromises of simply "a pioneer and known". SwisterTwister   talk  22:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mild delete. There might be enough eventually (if one looks hard enough) barely to make a notability case, but what is in the article so far is clearly not enough. In particular, using words like solution, infrastructure, and especially hyper-converged infrastructure set off my marketing detector when the company does none of those in English. Might be beyond rescue. Too many self-proclaimed Unicorns now days. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- one of the sources listed above states that the company might plan an IPO for 2017 and that it had "$95m in sales in its 2016 financial year, double that from the previous 12 months. The company was founded in 2009 and launched its first product in 2012." This is not really significant for a 7-yo company, and the IPO does not look certain at this moment. The end result is this is a page on an unremarkable private tech company, where nothing stands out. Thus, I recommend deleting at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * New Comments for this Article to not be Deleted -- I came across this Wikipedia page when doing some research for a friend of mine and saw the delete banner from last Wednesday. The page was terrible so I started editing the page - and have done far more than I thought I would ever do (I am obviously new to Wikipedia).  Anyway the old version had one section but now there are seven & all of the sections have alot more in each.  Most or all of these bullet points have a citation, some have multiple citations as well.  I've also gone back to check and make sure the URL's aren't broken, updated accordingly.  Also have Wikipedia links in here for most of the sections except Clients and Awards.


 * I think it is in good shape but may go back again and modify a little bit more. Some of the comments on here are asking if this is a real company, yes they are, and something else about IPO or SEO stuff.  I'm not sure about any of this but simplivity is definitely a real company.


 * I would like to know how to keep this page from being deleted plus find out how to make the page better! Thank you, William, Wmshultz Wmshultz (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Wmshultz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No doubt It is full of citations and misleading for readings as well. The criteria for Wikipedia notability is not just writing each words with "non-notable" citations. There are not enough Independent Notable in-depth coverage for this one (means notable media not blog post). Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep First up, I'd like to apologize in advance if I am formatting something incorrectly or otherwise not participating in this discussion in appropriate Wikipedia fashion. This is my first attempt at joining a talk thread on Wikipedia.  That said, I would deeply appreciate the opportunity to be heard even if I make a faux pas. Thank you in advance!


 * I believe SimpliVity are notable enough for their own Wikipedia page for a few reasons. They're one of the largest HCI vendors both in customer base and revenue.  Their approach is unique amongst HCI vendors: namely the use of an ASIC to handle data efficiency.  Even after years of HCI vendors adding features and homogenizing, SimpliVity still stands apart from the rest in how they handle multi-site capability.  These are technical reasons, to be sure, but they make SimpliVIty one of the most notable tech vendors of the 2010s.


 * I am a tech journo (and a sysadmin) myself. No different in many ways than the fellow so casually derided above.  I am also someone who enjoys Wikipedia as a reader, and I am trying - slowly but surely - to learn to become a contributor.  I understand (or think I do!) the desire and importance behind notability.  Not every HCI vendor *is* notable.  Some will only ever be an entry in something like the List of Hyperconverged Infrastructure Vendors that I am working on.  That said, I honestly believe that SimpliVity is one of the few vendors in this space notable enough to have their own page.


 * If the quality of the page is inadequate, or there is a desire for "better" sources, then by all means, let's discuss what criteria are adequate and improve the quality. If desired, I'll take a stab at the research myself.  I'm still learning, but if I'm going to stand up and say this company is notable enough to keep, I should be willing to do the work to improve the page!


 * I'm also curious what is defined as "notable media" here. My own work has been cited on various pages in Wikipedia.  So has Mellor's (many, many times).  So as a tech journo, I'm honestly curious: does Wikipedia have a list of which publications are considered acceptable and which are too pedestrian?


 * Another question - and again, I am really new to this talk thing, so please forgive me if this isn't the right forum to ask, but what prevents PRs from a given tech company from simply submitting all their rivals for deletion? The SimpliVity page was discussed above as "churnalism" and there were references to attempting to use Wikipedia for PR.  Isn't that a bit of a two-way street?


 * To round out: I think SimpliVity is distinct enough and important enough amongst tech companies for it's own page, even while I don't believe that about may of the other players in the same space. I'm willing to put the work in to help bring the page up to standards (and educating myself in the process) if you're willing to keep it.  Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope everyone has a great day! --Astlor (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Astlor! I was on the wikichat earlier and another editor referred me to Microsoft and Apple -- to find specific places to CITE. You could spend all day on here though and become quite frustrated, fair warning. Wmshultz (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Required Immediate Attention :Suspicious entry by users: Not sure but seems very close to this company or each other. The way they are reacting Wmshultz & Astlor Light2021 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am new to wikipedia and don't know who any of these people are, but I do know that this is quite difficult & was doing this for a friend. There are so many links on here that I'm trying to find out which ones are good and which ones aren't.  Wmshultz (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know who Wmshultz is, nor what qualifies as "very close" to a company. I am a tech journo.  I know SimpliVity, almost all of their competitors, tech companies both big and small who aren't competitors...it's my job.  If you want full disclosure, just ask!  I once did some commercial content work (read: writing some blogs) for SimplliVity.  It was at least 8 months ago.  Currently, I am doing commercial content work for three of SimpliVity's competitors.  My current relationship with SimpliVity is: Me: "hey guys, I think you're kind of doing it wrong, and that there are some things over here you should pay attention to" SimpliVity: "nah, we're good".  Insert months of not really interacting with them because of deep-seated disagreements here.


 * Also, what ever happened to Assume Good Faith? I like to think of myself as a person, with my own opinions and beliefs.  I don't believe that just because a company is a startup, or has not IPOed they are not notable.  I believe SimpliVity is notable.  Is honest disagreement disallowed?  And is it okay to impugn an individual for honestly trying to help?


 * I don't want to cause a scene, and I don't want to get wrapped up in weird politics. I just wanted to contribute to an area I've spent the past several years of my life living and breathing.  I'm saddened that my first attempt to contribute has been met with such an accusation.  My apologies to all if I have broken rules in attempting to do so. --Astlor (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I created this article along with its competitor Nutanix about 2 ½ years ago. Since that time, both have been inundated with promotional wording from editors who are likely related to the company in one way or another. You can see that in October of last year another editor ripped out much of the promotional wording that had been added since its creation in 2014.


 * Agreeing that it reads promotional, I reverted it back to where it was when I originally created it. I would ask the nominator what is promotional about the wording. While I understand his/her wanting to get rid of spam and promotion, simply existing as an article does not make it promotional.


 * Now, if an article is promotional beyond repair, it most certainly should be speedily deleted under WP:G11. If it is promotional but repairable, then G11 states replacing the content with text that complies with WP:NPOV is preferable. AfD is not cleanup and should be used for companies that are non-notable. With that, let’s address the notability concerns.


 * Notability in Wikipedia is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. A company must also satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. SimpliVity satisfies this guideline with articles in Forbes, TechCrunch, and Business Insider to name a few. These are all in-depth pieces that talk about the company itself. If nominator is unhappy with the guidelines on notability, they need to be addressed there, not by using AfD for WP:DE against what the community has already decided are the notability standards.


 * For routine mentions, simply mentioning funding is what I would consider a routine mention and you can find many sources that simply write a few sentences about an announcement funding. This is what is NOT in-depth according to WP:CORPDEPTH. However, I consider it much different when someone like TechCrunch picks up on the funding announcement and writes and article that not only talks about the funding, but goes into more details about a company and its products/services.


 * Finally, &  should not be offended by the comments of . There is a guideline to assume good faith, but in this case I think that he/she has. When new users come to Wikipedia and immediately come to a deletion discussion that normally indicates a conflict of interest. Many of us have been here for a while and can recognize behavior such as two new users commenting on the discussion at approximately the same time. Unfortunately, this is too much of a WP:DUCK and makes us think you are a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It was strange how that other guy posted a comment. I was only on here reading the details on what to do and responded when the note popped up - was hoping it was someone who could help? It would be great if I could find someone to go through the article and say delete this, this is bad, don't use this and this is OK. My apologies, continuing to try to edit. Seems like most of the article disappeared so I'll try to type out what I can and reference the better links in the hopes this doesn't get deleted tonight. Hoping to finish by tomorrow night sometime, Central Time US, thanks. Wmshultz (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - I would advise to leave it in the current condition. What you have added made the article sound more promotional then when it was recommended for deletion. Any addition you do that does not adhere to WP:TONE and WP:NPOV I will simply revert. Sorry. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Data storage is a big business, inspiring investors to pump money into an array of startups. SimpliVity hopes to stand out from the pack, reaching a market value of more than $1 billion less than two years after shipping its hardware. The Westborough, Mass., company on Tuesday is announcing a $175 million funding round, with $150 million coming from Waypoint Capital–an investment firm associated with Switzerland’s Bertarelli family that initially encountered SimpliVity as a customer. SimpliVity is a proponent of what Silicon Valley calls “hyperconverged” technology. That means that computing and data storage are handled in the same box–essentially a server based on the x86 chip technology popularized by Intel, packaged along with software and components to store data on both disks and flash memory chips. ...  SimpliVity’s funding round, its fourth, brings the total raised to date to $276 million. Prior investors participating in the latest round include Accel Partners, Charles River Ventures, DFJ Growth, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Growth and Meritech Capital Partners. Waypoint, a new investor, is leading the round."  The article notes: "Hyper-converged infrastructure appliance vendor SimpliVity is working with Morgan Stanley to get more private funding and to launch an IPO possibly in 2017. It has also laid people off. SimpliVity has been making cuts while looking for $100m in extra cash, a source familiar with the matter has told The Register. We have seen an internal Morgan Stanley memo that confirms the numbers involved. The email states that SimpliVity booked more than $95m in sales in its 2016 financial year, double that from the previous 12 months. The company was founded in 2009 and launched its first product in 2012. Crucially though, the memo suggests that, despite Morgan Stanley's efforts this year to secure new private funding for the business, SimpliVity has been unable to win over any new investors – its last funding round was announced in March 2015."  The article notes: "About 18 months ago, Westboro-based “hyperconverged infrastructure” provider, SimpliVity, brought on former EMC sales executive Mitch Breen with great fanfare. Now Mr. Breen is out, and founder and CEO Doron Kempel is taking over sales as SimpliVity marches toward its planned 2016 initial public offering. Before getting into its organizational change, let’s look at what SimpliVity does. Hyperconverged infrastructure is tech lingo for combining many different computing jobs into one device. SimpliVity’s product is called the OmniCube, and it combines up to 12 different computing activities into a single device that uses a low-priced server with very sophisticated software." The sources provided by 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SimpliVity to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Comment and analysis - First let me note there's been an exhaustive list of comments analyzing the sources above and noting how there's a damningly large amount of self-republished interviews, trivial mere mentions as part of either its clients, investors or partners, but then also literal company quotes and number specifics, none of which are independent or significant. Now here's the analysis of sources above:
 * Data storage is a big business, inspiring investors to pump money into an array of startups. SimpliVity hopes to stand out from the pack, reaching a market value of more than $1 billion less than two years after shipping its hardware. (note how the paragraph begins with the subject of "data technology" first and then saying "Now SimpliVity hopes to stand out....market value!" None of that was journalism because it was literally the company's own words. Now the next one:
 * Hyper-converged infrastructure appliance vendor SimpliVity is working with Morgan Stanley to get more private funding and to launch an IPO possibly in 2017.... (followed by a few mere sentences and mini-paragraphs about how the business needs supporting, therefore not only is it not independent because the company literally supplied it, we can't even confide of significance, because it means nothing beyond the company's own plans of its own business).
 * Now as for the last article, note how literally the first massive part begins with that one businessman and his connections to the company before it says "Before getting into its organizational change, let’s look at what SimpliVity does"....literally not only company advertising, but literally saying "We're not going to talk about its business yet, let's mention what its services are and how the company can be used". This is a repeatedly familiar method of simply cosmetic-filling "news" when it's simply advertising simple as that, because it all ever focused with the company's own words, no actual journalism. Therefore, because it was so blatant with company specifics and numbers, businessman plans and thoughts and literal "here's what the company's services and features are and how you can use it!", it's not substantial or independent, hence it's not even notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is pretty obvious promotion for a non-notable company and should be deleted per WP:DEL14. The company itself is not notable. If you carefully look at the sources, there is not one good in-depth trusted mainstream media source. All I see is the routine news published in a bunch of startup media. My problem with using these sources is that they often publish redressed press releases and I do not consider that independent per WP:CORPIND. The WSJ source is reliable but I cannot see if it is an in-depth source or if it is a routine news about funding. The Telegram and Gazette is a local source. That combined with the obvious socking is grounds enough to delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ouch. I am sure you meant no harm but saying this is "pretty obvious promotion" is a kick in my rear. I create the article and have no skin in the game so I assure you it was not created for "promotion." If you look at the article in its current state, it is almost identical to the one I created. Over the years, there has been a ton of promotion added - which is often the case in Wikipedia once a company or person sees they have a Wikipedia page - but not sure what about the current form would be considered promotional. I understand your point on WP:CORPIND as we see it quite often and is normal in the startup stage of a company. However, I am curious about your opinion on the Business Insider article . Not just the article itself, but also the episode of Silicon Valley (TV series) related to the company.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the sources fail WP:RS since they rely on PRIMARY sources of information and quote SimpliVity announcements or personel. -- HighKing ++ 14:12, 24 November 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.