Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talari Networks


 * 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   no quorum. NPASR. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talari Networks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Most information appears to be sourced from it's linkedin page. All other mentions are of PR/incidental (company wins such and suchs award for X, etc). Nothing suggesting wide spread adoption. Caffeyw (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * weak Keep There seem to be some possibly significant awards. Unlike many articles in this subject area, there is no apparent promotionalism  DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a reference to the newest recognition the company has received, as one of CRN's Top Emerging Vendors of 2013. The list of the awards the company has won is quite significant.  Interop is one of the top US tech shows for voice and data networking.  Cisco, Citrix, HP and Samsung were among the many vendors who attended.  I have also strengthened the article by removing the LinkedIn references, and replaced two references to Talari home pages with links to better third party sources.  The LinkedIn references were just there to substantiate that the two co-founders had worked together.  That by itself doesn't support the above writer's claim that most of the information is sourced from LinkedIn.  I will work to add additional third party references to illustrate notability and widespread adoption, and will continue to improve the entry.Timtempleton (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Request to close discussion. Company is significant with good third party references to substantiate the notability.  Original flagger Caffeyw is not reading talk pages or addressing the article improvements that were made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 September 2013 (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.