Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya 1100 series IP phones

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. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya 1100 series IP phones

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod a year ago, article is written like an ad and I am finding difficulty locating in depth coverage in reliable sources No unique names 05:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product range and spam by stealth. These Avaya article where created by overly enthusiastic editors, SPA accounts and spammer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Alan Liefting, Really? You are making very grave allegations against a group of unnamed wiki-editors. Are you saying that all 16 editors who contributed to this article are ‘’’overly enthusiastic editors, SPA accounts and spammers’’’, or did you mean to single out only specific editors and if so who? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created the article was overly enthusiastic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my claim of "grave allegations". Stop flogging a dead horse Ottawahitech. There is enough other stuff for our energies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting, It is not a dead horse I am worried about, but rather elephants let loose in china shops. But should you be addressing me in this manner in the first place? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "addressing me in this manner"? I did not address you per se. I merely gave you some advice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of an elephant in a china shop. A bull, perhaps, but we now know that's not even something over which to worry. --No unique names 00:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is different from product pages from numerous other vendors (Cisco, Linksys, 3com, and others). Suggest larger effort to re-write Avaya product content to be more factual/historical and merge into a single Avaya products page. However, not sure how to get that done... in the meantime, I feel this should be kept and flagged for improvement to remove any marketing fluff. Pjhansen (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's not a reason to keep, though. --No unique names 18:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point and can't say I disagree. However, I'd hate for this content to be lost due to deletion when really what's needed is a solid re-write/re-org (out of scope for deletion requests, I know). Pjhansen (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about the loss it can always be userfied, before of after deletion. If can alls be recreated from scratch. There is not a lot of substance to it. But anyway, there is no loss for an article that is way outside the purview of Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or delete and redirect to the brand article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge this article and Avaya IP Phone 1140E at a new article located at Nortel IP Phones. The history section of this article has some interesting information, and is a reasonable example of how a Wikipedia article about a product or line of products should not resemble a catalog. The product-specific listing and press releases used as references should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr, your suggestion above would have made sense except that what you call the Avaya IP Phone 1140E is really Nortel IP Phone 1140E, in other words it was an IP-phone designed by Nortel, the defunct Canadian company, not Avaya. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe Avaya IP Phones is a better merge target; the design history of the Nortel pedigree of some of Avaya's phones would be an interesting paragraph in the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr, the problem is there is much more to the history of this article, Nortel, Lucent and Avaya that the people supporting this deletion seem to not have an interest in. For example if you check this parallel discussion taking place right now and look at the article in question you will discover that it is about a PBX manufactured by Lucent since the late 1980s, not by Avaya which was founded in 2000. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not how this (or any) product's development history is relevant to the decision regarding keep/delete/merge the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ due to insufficient sourcing. I will also add that the cumulation of all these product articles is disturbing and quite frankly spammy.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable compromise to avoid having articles on individual models. Articles on major product lines from major companies is entirely justified. There information, not promotion--its the articles on individual models that are apt to verge onto promotion and should be discouraged. So far from the combination of the product articles as spammy, it's the antithesis of spam--suitably sparse coverage. Dividing it iup into individual articles is what's often spammy.Reducing it below this level is removing information. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of developing a consistent direction/consensus, what do you think of removing the "1100 Series" from the title as suggested above? VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, how can we justify keeping this one article about an Avaya product when at least fifteen other similar pages (mostly consisting of historical Nortel products have already been deleted, and others are still outstanding in one of the many Wikipedia deletion processes as we speak, after being nominated for deletion by either by User:Nouniquenames or by User: Alan Liefting? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is that having made an error is not precedent for making further errors. Many of the other deletions for individual products should have been merged; for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Secure Router 2330 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya ERS 2500 in neither does a merge appear to have been even considered, Notable products deserve their own articles; borderline-notable products from major companies deserve substantial coverage in a merged article. It's not just a guideline, but part of deletion policy, that merge is always preferred to delete, when a merge is feasible and appropriate. I try to never argue or close for delete in a situation where a merge might be possible without explaining why I think a merge not suitable; all product articles from notable companies are potentially mergeable, so I think such arguments should be required before deletion of product articles, and explicit consideration of them required in all such closes. The closes I refer to above were against policy, as are most delete closes of similar products. They should normally be merges. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that many of the merges that were carried out were incorrect and inadequate, because only the name of the product was merged, without any additional information; that's a destructive merge, sometimes called a smerge, and I consider doing this needs to be specially justified because it's otherwise against the most fundamental of all our principles, that we are an encyclopedia: for encyclopedias are not just lists of names, but provide information. I urge people to start by slowly are carefully expanding every item in the product list in Avaya to at least identify the product line, and then to expand to include each significant individual product--as uncontroversial routine facts, the company's own sources are sufficient for that. they wouldn't be adequate for a quality judgement, but they're adequate for saying what it is; if there are reviews, they should of course be referenced. There's good arguments to give why the individual products shouldn't be extensively discussed, or why every possible variation should not be included, but there are none to say why the major individually named products shouldn't be described. NOT CATALOG is often cited, but it prohibits only listing prices; NOT ADVERTISING specifically permits objective information; WP:N does not refer to article content, so none of its provisions are relevant. NOT INDISRIMINATE isn't actually relevant, as an examination of the examples will show: what it is actually about is requiring context. There is thus no policy requiring or even allowing us to omit such material, or for permitting such destructive merges. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Still more Avaya spam. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, how do we distinguish Ayala spam from proper articles about ayala products? DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume by using notability guidelines. --No unique names 01:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia does not need an article about every little product that Avaya ever made. Most of these articles are PR-driven, and that is not good. How is this product notable outside Avaya? It's not. It's just another product. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue Rangell (and -Nouniquenames+Alan Liefting), if you are truly concerned about spam why do you keep nominating and supporting deletion of legacy Nortel & Lucent products instead of joining the quest to roll those articles back to their rightful (and defunct) owners? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lable doesn't change the contents. It's still spam/cruft/a product directory, and it still doesn't belong here. --No unique names 11:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the part of the notability guideline that talks about spam? The notability guideline has nothing to do with article content, and says it has nothing to do with article content. I see in the WP:N lede: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." Where do you think the notability policy says otherwise? As the guideline says, the notability guideline is a guideline to one thing and one thing only, whether something is suitable to be the subject of a separate article. Spam is another issue: consider something which clearly is, like the iphone 5, about which there are dozens of detailed reviews from RSs/ It is possible to describe it in a promotional way, which would be spam, and possible to describe it neutrally. Spam is using non-promotional language, or hyping the features, or using and naming it as an example in every article on phones. On the other hand a non-notable product, such as some specific cover for the iphone5, can be described in a non spammy way, also. There is however a correlation, which is that the content of an article on a non-notable product is often spam as well, and I have even proposed that we take this into account at AfDs where neither spam nor lack of notabliity alone would be a sufficient reason for deletion. That's why NOT says in the Advertising section that "articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable". (And even there it says "typically," and it's part of the explanation , not the policy--and products are not one of the examples used. Rightly so, since any product can be described in neutral language.) It does not help the discussion to throw in names of guidelines that have not been read carefully enough to see that they do not apply., as your nomination does.

As for your other asserted policies: The example for businesses at NOTDIRETORY says "an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings" (Agreed, it should contain only the one relevant to its business.) This article is not at that level of detail, it does not list the patents that might apply. It does not contains a statement that the article should not contain a list of all the company's products, but I would agree that it should not; It should include only products with some degree of significance, Nor does it say anything about articles of products. What does say something on articles on products is NOTMANUAL. But the detail here is much less than the full manual, which for a product like this is typically the size of a large book. (Even the consumer's manual for my very simple phone is 175 pages long) You could argue the article should be half the length, --but that's irrelevant to having a full article & certainly irrelevant to having a merge of a reasonably substantial section. You say "cruft", a non-ecxistent policy or guideline. It redirects to WP:FANCRUFT is an essay discussing what it defines in the lede as " content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" I don't see the relevance of "fans" to products of this nature. A related essay WP:TALKCRUFT says "Many Wikipedians use "cruft" as a shorthand term to describe content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia". Thus, saying it as a rationale is saying It doesn't belong here because it doesn't belong here. I suppose you mean "obviously inappropriate" , but it is not obviously inappropriate, because it's been challenged. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as avaya is a large company who's products are used it could be seen as notable especially to telecom historians. I disagree that this is spam, But agree is it unsourced and requires modification Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article combining the different IP phones of Avaya. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2012 (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.