Wikipedia:Deletion review/RAD Data Communications


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was kept deleted. - brenneman  {L}  12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RAD Data Communications

 * Was deleted by Samuel Blanning per an AfD Discussion. Was then deleted again by FCYTravis after it was recreated.

Dear Wikipedia administrators, The entry of 'RAD Data Communications' was deleted for WP:Corp notability reasons. I think this descision is absurd, because:
 * 1) RAD has authoured numerous industry standards in the field of data communications:
 * 2) *IETF PWE3 Internet Drafts:
 * 3) *# RFC 4197 - Requirements for Edge-to-Edge Emulation of TDM Circuits over Packet
 * 4) *# Structure-Agnostic TDM over Packet (SAToP)
 * 5) *# TDM over IP (TDMoIP)
 * 6) *# Structure-aware TDM Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN)
 * 7) *# SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)
 * 8) *# Managed Objects for TDM over Packet Switched Network
 * 9) *# Managed Objects for Structure-Agnostic TDM over Packet Network
 * 10) *ITU-T Recommendations:
 * 11) *# Y.1413 - TDM-MPLS network interworking - User plane interworking
 * 12) *# Y.1414 - Voice services - MPLS network interworking
 * 13) *# Y.17tdm - OAM for TDM-MPLS network interworking (work in progress SG13Q5)
 * 14) *# Y.tdmip - TDM-IP interworking - user plane interworking (work in progress SG13Q7)
 * 15) *# Y.vtoip - Voice trunking over IP (work in progress SG13Q7)
 * 16) *# G.pactiming - Timing and synchronization aspects of packet networks (work in progress SG15Q13)
 * 17) * MPLS - Frame Relay Alliance (MFA) Implementation Agreements :
 * 18) *# IA 4.0 - TDM Transport over MPLS using AAL1
 * 19) *# IA 5.0 - I.366.2 Voice Trunking over MPLS
 * 20) *# IA 8.0.0 - Emulation of TDM Circuits over MPLS Using Raw Encapsulation - Implementation Agreement
 * 21) * Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Implementation Agreements :
 * 22) *# MEF 3 - Circuit Emulation Service Definitions, Framework and Requirements in Metro Ethernet Networks
 * 23) *# MEF 8 - Implementation Agreement for Emulation of PDH Circuits over Metro Ethernet Networks
 * 24) In addition to all the above, RAD has customers in 164 countries, and the RAD Group includes additional 15 independent companies that operate in Israel, while several of them are traded in the US Nasdaq.  The company exists for over 25 years.  If this is not notable, what is?  And regarding verifyability, by whom should it be performed?  Why not give a reason and references to sources that can help in restoring the deleted article?
 * 25) There is also another problem, the article was removed for notability reasons, while the warning tag - prior to the deletion - was of advertisement. So please decide, was it an ad or was RAD not notable enough?  If the tone of the text was promotional, then the ad tag was clearly sufficient. I was trying to upload a revised version, to conform with the NPOV policy, but then again, that wasn't the official reason for the deletion!
 * 26) Wikipedia users are entitled to know about corporations, and I think that the WP:Corp guideline needs to be revised accordingly...
 * Looking forward to your replies. --John Hyams 9 May 2006, 09:30 (GMT+2)


 * As the closing admin, this was a simple by-the-numbers consensus. Wikipedia users may be entitled to know about corporations, but for that they can look in Yellow Pages. Most companies, like most people, are not notable enough for coverage in an encyclopaedia. In case anyone's going starry-eyed over the numbers, how many coutnries they sell to isn't much of an indication of notability. It's not exactly difficult to sell abroad nowadays. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure Afd was clear result for delete. (Notability claims are also lacking - RFC 4197 was authored by Siemens AG, a person from Rad was listed as one of five contributors.) Regards, MartinRe 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Much as the above disgusts me (Wikipedia users are no more "entitled to know" about individual companies than they are entitled to advertise free under the guise of encyclopaedia articles), I would say that a company of that size which is listed in the authors list of IETF standards would pass WP:CORP. However, endorse deletion without prejudice against creation of a non-spammy article on the company created by somsone not associated with it, which sounds like it rules out John Hyams. By non-spammy I mean omitting cruft like when they were awarded ISO9001. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure of the AFD discussion and endorse speedy-deletion as recreated content which failed to address the shortcomings identified during the AFD discussion. In my mind, the jury is still out on whether a good article can be written about this company.  WP:CORP is a distillation of our collective experience on the kinds of companies where the community has found that it's infeasible to write a neutral and verifiable article based on reliable sources.  As far as I can tell, this company is privately held, making verification much more difficult.  Their self-reported revenues for 2005 were a mere $150 million - pretty small when compared to the kinds of companies that do routinely pass WP:CORP.  The only SEC filing I can find on them shows an equity stake of less than $100,000.  I'm not finding anything in the news except press-releases - content which has been judged insufficient to support an encyclopedia article.  Any reporting about them will be complicated by their relationship with a parent entity, RAD Group.  (To answer the nominator's second major objection above, please note that this article was not about the parent company.  It was specifically written about RAD Data Communications.  Even if the parent is notable, notability is not inherited by subordinate entities.)  My recommendation, however, is without prejudice against recreation by someone independent of the company if they can find enough verifiable information to support an article.  Rossami (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure I think that they are notable enough, and am a bit annoyed by how the AfD went but the consensus seems clear. RD is an appeal for process problems and new evidence, not for second guessing AfDs, and I see no new evidence nor any reason to believe that a process error occured. That said, I would strongly support an article about the RAD Group as a whole and suspect that such an article would have a much easier time surviving AfD. JoshuaZ 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * John's Opinion Rossami, the RAD Group page was also deleted (!), you can see it in the log. Not notable enough? Well, what would you say about: http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/200605/market_close_050806.stm ?  And this is from two days ago. RADVISION is one member of the RAD group, and people are entitled to know about it as well. RAD by itself has authored IETF drafts, so do any of you know what these are??  It appears that your "majority votes" include people who have not idea about the latest networking standards and technologies, and for Wikipedians - this is rather bizar (in my opinion). Does everything have to be based on money?? And sale figures??  The WP:CORP guideline has to be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John hyams (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 May 2006  (UTC)
 * Comment RAD group was deleted because the admin though it was "substantially similar" to the article which failed Afd. That looks like a valid deletion under WP:CSD, G4. Everything isn't based on money - on wikipedia everything is based on verifibility and notability. These are closely related, if a company is notable enough, many other sources will write about them, allowing us to verify facts from non-related sources. WP:CORP is a guideline (and just a guideline) on what editors have found as a reasonable cut off point, companies that don't pass WP:CORP have generally less neutral information to check against, making them hard to be verifible and neutral, both of which are core policies, so articles that can't satisfy them will generally get deleted. I get the impresion (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're closely related to the company's in question. If so, Autobiography outlines many of the problems about writing about something which your are personally involved with. I woudl think the best might be to work on a Rad Group article in userspace, with sections for the related companies (instead of stand alone articles), ensuring there is as much verifiable infomation from reliable sources as possible, with the the tone as encyclopedic you can, and then bring it back for review agains. Regards, MartinRe 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Zozoulia's OpinionNo one has yet mentioned that RAD Data Communications is among the most well-known companies in the telecommunications industry for students of telecommunications. Credit is due to its online "RAD University" http://www.rad.com/Home/0,6583,5847,00.html. Someone said above that RAD is privately owned, and therefore maybe it isn't as important as a Cisco or whatever, but, for those of us who study telecommunications protocols and technologies, there's nothing else remotely as useful for telecoms students on the Web as the resource that RAD provides. Zozoulia 11:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Above is user's first edit. JoshuaZ 13:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No one said that "privately owned" = "unimportant". What I said was "privately owned" = "harder to verify".  If it really is "among the most well-known companies in the telecommunications industry" then it should be no trouble for you to produce verifiable cites from reliable sources demonstrating that fact.  Rossami (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the Deletion Police on another roll. Why is a page for RAD horrible, but it's OK to have a long one on Vertical? If there was an NPOV problem, then NPOV it or tag it. Gene Ward Smith 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, where did anybody say anything about NPOV? It's about verifiability.  The last AfD was proper, and unless you can provide new evidence of the subejct's notability, all you're trying to do is relawyer the AfD, which is not the purpose of the DRV page.  Keep deleted, valid AfD.  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr1819's opinion: Endorse RESTORE. As a network security consultant for more than 20 years, I strongly recommend undelete.  RAD (Rapid Application Development) is extremely well known throughout the computer industry, and the company of the similar name has been around much longer than most in the computer industry.  While it doesn't have the mainstream and media presence of Microsoft, it most certainly has highly visible presence throughout the computing and networking industries, particularly in publications such as Network World, a global IDG publication (PC World, MACWorld, CIO, TechWorld, etc.).  I'm not sure who deleted RAD, but whoever it was obviously hasn't a clue when it comes to the computer industry.


 * Much of Wiki was originally developed using RAD, and RAD supports much of the infrastructure of the Internet. Without RAD, you wouldn't be viewing this.  I'd call that relevant.


 * The company known as RAD Data Communications took the RAD concept a step further, way back in 1981 (count the years - 25, nearly as old as Microsoft, and certainly much older than many corporations listed in Wiki). It's one of the unsung heroes throughout the networking industry who've turned countless RFCs (requests for comment) into workable solutions which 'provide much of the content you see every time your surf the Internet.'


 * In short, if there were no RAD, there would be no Wiki. So why is Wiki deleting RAD?


 * It doesn't make any sense to me, either, except perhaps a conjectural remark that those doing the deleting haven't a clue as to the content their deleting. In that case, perhaps Admins should only be given control over subjects with which they're highly familiar, as the tendancy for them to delete subjects they don't understand, and therefore believe aren't important, appears to me to be unbelievably high.  Dr1819 20:59, 18 May 2006 (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.