Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Application Server 5300

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 redirect to Avaya. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Application Server 5300

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

Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With main Avaya article, is multisourced from a mixture of corporate and government sources. Is a notable company, while spammy, does not appear to have originated from the company itself. Rather it appears to have been created by a "telco geek". Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No indication of independent notability. --No unique names 22:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears this deletion nomination is motivated by the same faulty rationale provided by user: Alan Liefting, user: Nouniquenames and user: Sue Rangell in many other deletion discussionas & processes some of which have been successful in removing valuable information. More backbground was available at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel, but no updates can be posted because the page has been archived prematurely.

For more see user:DGG comments here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avaya_1100_series_IP_phones Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the"faulty rationale"? And what are your reasons to keep it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting, Where do I start? Have you read the links I provided above before asking your question? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You referred us to DGG's comments elsewhere, but they were commenting about a major product line. The Avaya Application Server 5300 seems to be a very specific (non-notable) product. So the comments don't apply to this discussion, do they? Sionk (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider merging with other similar products by the same company,--but only similar products in the same product line, and preserving the information. Major products from major companies are notable, but may not be worth individual articles. Any merges must however preserve the information. My comment yesterday giving a little more analysis does apply to this, and to all of this entire series of nominations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia-of-all-things-except-the-technical-world. and not just the physical world: The article about every commercial and noncommercial organization, or every creative person, or every political and religious concept, serves in some extent to promote it by providing accurate information about it. We have enough problem with the true advertising and promotionalism for all of these. All relevant WP policy and guidelines are designed to permit and indeed encourage neutral description. I look forward to WP not just to reversing all previous deletions and over-merges of these products, but the much harder & longer job of writing them for the hundreds of thousands of products in all fields of commerce and technology for which we need articles . Our model is Diderot and D'alemberts Encyclopedie, famous in the eighteenth century and still in ours for the detailed description and illustrations of technology of the period--and the long continued detailed coverage of technology in succeeding encyclopedias. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is way below the level of notability of the current crop of product articles. This is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but in this case I think it is applicable. We are never going to get articles for the hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of products out in the market and random product articles such as this one are outliers that do not belong in WP. The article is a sort of odd one out. As with other topic areas we should stick to the more notable items. Also, we should not try and turn WP into a product catalogue. These product related AfDs are a bit of a headache so we really should do something about improving the WP:PRODUCT notability guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

otherstuff in this case a reasonable argument, but it's an argument for undeleting the other stuff, the articles that have been deleted. There is no reason why we should not have articles for "thousands or millions" of products--we're not paper. all we need is someone to write them, and the first step in getting people to do this is to not throw out the relatively few we already have. Alan's criterion is "more notable", but that's not the WP criterion=--the WP guideline is Notable. I could just as easily say that we should keep only the "more notable" major league baseball players, or the "more notable" cities. "more notable," , is the criterion for an abridged children;s encyclopedia that doesn't want to burden the infants with more knowledge than their teachers think they can handle. We write for adults. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we limit WP articles to the "more notable" topics in other subject areas (people, bands, books, films, etc) so why not products? And with the declining number of editors who is going to maintain product related articles - let alone write them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 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 02:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an apparently non-notable product, cited to the Avaya and Nortel websites. No evidence of reliable, independent coverage. Reads like a blatant advertisement. Sionk (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam without encyclopedic value or particular notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:54, 22 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.