Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqua Connect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 consensus. Sandstein 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aqua Connect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Speedy deleted as advertising. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 26 determined it was not blatant and deserved an AfD. Needs work; may or may not meet WP:CORP. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 05:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup — at least two reliable sources in the article establish notability. Needs to be cleaned up to get rid of the advertising tone. MuZemike (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless citations from reliable sources are added to the article as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to weak delete — coverage is there, but seems to be mostly press releases. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle- I added two more reliable sources. One from DABCC (A trusted web-site about access virtualization and terminal services) and also one from Brian Madden (an industry analysis company). Hope that helps. MacJarvis (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak delete — coverage is there, but seems to be mostly press releases. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I'm only finding press releases, which are not sources independent of the topic. There seems to be some effort to improve the article. Giving it another three months before AfD#2 might be what is needed. -- Suntag ☼ 21:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hey guys. So I have a few points to mention about my article. The article has been in AfD for six days now. Shouldn't a consensus be reached after 5 days? That was my understanding in the Wiki description of AfD. When the article went into "deletion review" the consensus was to overturn. I have done my best to make this article live up to the Wiki standards. I addressed the issues that editors had. I took out sources that seemed redundant or were too much like a press release, have no sources that actually go to the company's website, and have added more third party sources. I have said before that I tried to mirror this article after another company that I know who does a fairly similar thing. I've been studying VMWare, Parallels, Aqua Connect and other IT companies who do access virtualization and wanted to add an article for AC since I couldn't find them on wiki when starting my research. I can't help but notice that the VMWare Wiki page has only 11 references, 6 of which reference directly to the VMWare website. On that wiki article, it also lists all of their products and links to a new page that describes these products. The VMWare Fusion wiki article has 7 out of 9 references that are directly from VMWare's website. I don't understand why these articles meet Wiki criteria, yet the one I created doesn't. In comparison, the article I created sounds far less like an advertisement. I think my article deserves to be a page now. Thanks guys. Sorry, but I just had to put that out there. I've been watching all of the comments, and at this point I really feel that my article is worthy of Wiki. MacJarvis (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate was relisted because no one had commented after 5 days--this happens routinely. As for the other articles you mention, they may indeed not be very good, and we may get around to challenging them eventually, but that doesn't really bear on this debate--see WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for advertising, I still think the page is not really neutrally presented. I will remove some phrases I see as problematic, but I also think more balance is needed in general. For example, the Computerworld review you cite criticizes the use of VNC--why isn't that criticism in the article? Chick Bowen 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some edits. Another thing you might do that will help is to tone down some of the IT business jargon. For example, I have no idea what a "thin client" is. Chick Bowen 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions and clearing up some of my questions. I will work on making the article readable for non techies. MacJarvis (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some edits. Another thing you might do that will help is to tone down some of the IT business jargon. For example, I have no idea what a "thin client" is. Chick Bowen 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate was relisted because no one had commented after 5 days--this happens routinely. As for the other articles you mention, they may indeed not be very good, and we may get around to challenging them eventually, but that doesn't really bear on this debate--see WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for advertising, I still think the page is not really neutrally presented. I will remove some phrases I see as problematic, but I also think more balance is needed in general. For example, the Computerworld review you cite criticizes the use of VNC--why isn't that criticism in the article? Chick Bowen 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.