Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CTERA Networks (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. There is no consensus asbout whether the coverage is sufficiently in-depth, so the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  06:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTERA Networks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CTERA Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was already deleted once (with speedy close) as a "Wikivertisement for non-notable company that fails to even assert notability". The article is still an WP:ADVERT that fails to assert WP:NOTABILITY, but it also has WP:NPOV and potentially WP:COI problems — it's essentially a WP:PUFF piece and product catalog that would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Hence I propose we:

  • Delete and salt given we've been here before. -- samj inout 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a laundry list of policies. Despite being asked multiple times on the talk page, you have not given any example of where the article violates WP:NPOV. The accusations are baseless and unfair, please try to WP:AGF. Marokwitz (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article deleted in 2009 was a different one. Definitely not a valid deletion reason. The company meets and exceeds Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is ample significant coverage of the company reliable, independent secondary sources in the IT area, as evidenced by the sources cited by the article. It should take an incredible amount of twisting in order to claim the vast majority of these are not reliable, independent secondary sources covering the company in a major way. Marokwitz (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Published Book) Cloud Computing Bible, by Barrie Sosinsky, John Wiley and Sons, p. 462-464
    • (Top-tier Newspaper) Ctera Networks CloudPlug: Network Storage Sharing Device Offers Backup, Too: Washington Post
Washington Post article states Ctera's online storage is "a bit pricey in view of alternatives...." Also states, "Likewise, the CloudPlug itself is a bit expensive compared to similar devices." Although the article is a review of CloudPlug, it recommends the competing PogoPlug and Seagate's FreeAgent to ordinary users. Glrx (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Being criticized by the Washington Post doesn't reduce notability. Marokwitz (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA’s CloudPlug takes a hybrid approach to storage: VentureBeat
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA C200 Is What Cloud IT Should Be: CRN
    • (Analyst Group) CTERA company Profile: IDC Group
    • (Finance Magazine) CTERA company Profile: Bloomberg BusinessWeek
    • (Tech Magazine) "Ctera Drives Hybrid Approach to Backup": CTOEdge
    • (Analyst Group) CTERA's Cloud Attached Storage Adds File Sharing to Cloud Backup: Storage Switzerland
    • (Tech Magazine) Ctera Expands, Enhances Cloud Storage Capabilities: Network Computing
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Rolls Out Channel-Friendly Cloud Storage Portal: Channel Insider
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Intros Hybrid Local-Cloud Storage Appliance: CRN
    • (Analyst Group) Data Protection and Recovery in the Small and Mid-sized Business (SMB): Storage Strategies NOW
    • (Linux Magazine) CloudPlug Wall Wart Backs Up Linux: Local Backup, Offsite Backup: Linux Planet
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA C200 Reviewed: SmallNetBuilder
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Links Cloud Storage With Data Protection. Network Computing.
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA brings the cloud down scale. Network World.
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Extends Hybrid Cloud Storage Offering. InformationWeek.
Daniel Dern's September 22, 2010 InformationWeek article for comparison to
Ctera's September 21, 2010 press release. Bulleted points the same; there is no independent research here. Glrx (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's strike out that one. Marokwitz (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA launches portal, upgrades its CloudPlug. ZDNet.
    • (Tech Magazine) Ctera Adds Cloud Management Platform. Network Computing
    • (Tech Magazine) CTERA Launches Appliance-Integrated Cloud Platform. MSP Mentor.
    • (Linux Magazine) "The Next3 filesystem". LWN.
    • (Tech Magazine)"CTERA Adds Data Protection to Linux File Systems". ESG.

** (Tech Magazine) CTERA Adds Bare Metal and Server Backup to Hybrid Cloud: ESG

ESG's September 22, 2010 article uses the same "bare metal and server backup" in its title as Ctera's September 21, 2010 press release. The article has cribbed from the press release (eg, new version 2.5; C400). Where it's gone outside the press release, it has quoted CTERA's VP of marketing. The article is not independent research; it says what the company offers; it does not evaluate those products. Glrx (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a prominent and independent RS decides to cover a press release in its own words, then this is still a secondary source, and good indicator of notability. But Ok, let's strike out this one too. There are plenty of good sources remaining in the list to demonstrate notability. Marokwitz (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As discussed on the article's talk page, the supplied references usually read like they were cribbed from press releases (losing independence) or they only give passing mention to CTERA. Many titles indicate product announcements, and the company would be the source of those announcements. The articles do not qualify as "significant coverage". The list above is more about quantity rather than quality. The two pages in the book do not evaluate the company's products. The list excludes the previous touted Datamation article that only mentioned CTERA in passing and implied that it had fewer than 700 customers (the article is a year old). That suggests CTERA holds a small portion of the market (and it targets SOHO); even the title is iffy at "poised to save". We have no concrete measures of acceptance. The company's website does not identity major customers. Even the company's website speaks more in potential than actual achievement:
Managed storage solutions are the next big revenue opportunity for service providers. CTERA has designed its technology from the ground up to cater to the operational needs of service providers, and is actively partnering with leading ISPs, MSPs and resellers to deliver managed storage and online backup services. CTERA provides them with the CTERA Portal, a cloud services platform that enables service providers and IT resellers to quickly deliver cloud storage, hybrid local/off-site backup and data protection as managed services to their customers.[1]
The next3 filesystem is based on and compatible with ext3; a significant developer of ext3 claims ext3 is stopgap and suggests going a different route.
What statements make this company notable?
The company has "won" some awards, but how meritorious are those awards? Being in the top 100 could include a lot of also-rans.
The company is not yet notable. It does not have the depth of coverage in wide sources. The coverage is shallow and in limited sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.
Glrx (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly N and PUFF are not relevant because of the extensive references to RS in the article. Just because this is not Intel which is known to end customers does not mean that it is not significant. B2B companies are not less important or N than retailers. --Shuki (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete albeit weak. It seems still a puff piece right now. Worse is being full of neologisms and jargon. Cloud...cloud...cloud...cloud...cloud Just saying "cloud" often enough does not make it notable, just because everyone else also says the trendy word. Their marcom folks are certainly doing their job with the advertorials. As I recall, you buy the writers lunch and they write an article; some drinks and desert and you get a positive one. There indeed is quite a bit of coverage, and some might be as close to "reliable" as it gets in this industry. But generally it takes more than a couple years to become really notable after a product comes out, even in the quick-moving tech industry. The rack-mount box at least looks very generic. If article stays, much of the promotional text would need to go, leaving it with not much more than a list of products. If they go public or sign some more widely-covered deals could very well be notable some day, but not quite yet I would say. Move to user space and try again if the company is still around later. W Nowicki (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marokwitz' comments and the massive media coverage the company received in major tech magazines. Hmbr (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read thoroughly this thread, and I am very much convinced that this topic has the required importance level. To be more specific, I think the remarks made by Marokwitz point to sufficient evidence relating to the encyclopedic value of this article, and at the end of the day, this is what it's all about... E.Rattner2 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The subject may well be notable, but the article (which doubles as an advert/brochure/product catalog) fails to assert this or explain why. Furthermore, many of the sources are self published, not relevant, light or passing references, etc. In its current for it's an advert, not an encyclopedic article, so it should at least be stubbed. -- samj inout 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, first I agree that almost 'every' article could be improved -- to be more precise, if you wish, you can edit and improve this article yourself. However, I don't see how relevancy or needing to edit this one actually make a case for deletion! If we focus on the subject at hand, it seems even you think it is worth keeping, right...? Rattner2 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject may well be notable, but the article fails to assert this or explain why" - that's a fair point, and I'll try to improve the article to show this more clearly, hopefully with help of other editors. But it is not a reason for deletion. I remind you that according to WP:CORP, "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. So, basically, for the purpose of this deletion discussion, we are mainly required to demonstrate that the company has attracted notice, which the list of sources above, is sufficient to confirm. Marokwitz (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete this article, instead of trying to delete well written articles I suggest you to contribute to Wikipedia by making new ones...--Someone35 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?? Are we talking about the same article? This one is mostly marketing buzzwords that mean very little to most encylopedia readers. Very far from "well written". From the article I have no clue if the company develops hardware, software, provides services, or what. Cannot tell if anyone ever bought one of their products. We are not bad-mouthing the company: it is typical of small private companies to be vague in their early stages, and only time will tell if they really make a notable impact. And many of us do not think lack of new articles is a problem with wikipedia; on the contrary, time spent policing the flood of badly-writen new articles (many much worse than this one even) would be much better spent bringing the ones on truly encyclopedic subjects up in quality. W Nowicki (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? It is very clear that the company does develop hardware and software.Marokwitz (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If you read the source you'd see this is not a trivial appearance in the list of similar companies. The source provides In depth coverage of the company's solution and reflects on setup and Web UI and other details. The source notes about Capabilities not found in most competing devices and concludes with a great product for more-advanced users..
  2. Washington Post provides a wide general audience.
  3. Jon L. Jacobi appears independent of CTERA, reporting for PC World, specifically.
Those three might appear as characteristics of primary criteria AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another such example of an in depth review is "CTERA C200 Reviewed" by Timm Higgins of SmallNetBuilder. [2]. See detailed comment below. Marokwitz (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article satisfies both WP:N and WP:V. I do not see WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, nor WP:NPOV problems. I note that the use of a word like "cloud" is not a reason to delete an article. The unwillingness to verify/judge the list of sources provided in the article, article talk and above, is an additional sign that it includes enough WP:RS to satisfy requirements. The argument that it is not sure what the company does or makes or sells after reading the article, is clearly not true for the average reader as it even includes lists of products (hardware and software). Also, a speedy close (is that a delete?) in the past is no valid reason for delete today. The company can have grown and become notable since then, so the suggestion that a speedy close 2.5 years ago hold any value in favour of deletion today is not valid. There is simply not a WP:DEL#REASON for this article that I see. --DeVerm (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You're twisting the argument: claiming "cloud" is not an argument to delete the article; its that claiming "cloud" or other buzzwords does not automatically confer WP:N. I have gone through most of the sources in the above list, and I do not see redeeming value in them. If I have time, I will explicitly criticize some more of them, but many on their face are just product announcements. CTERA apparently does not have many customers or significant customers. One article suggests that CTERA has fewer than 700 customers; some competitors claim more than 50,000 customers. I am not asking for wishful thinking (the company may have grown in 2.5 years); I am asking for some proof that the company has done something significant other raise some money, file some incorporation papers, and have an over-achieving PR department that can get some ink in some narrow trade publications when it also buys some advertising. The Washington Post article indicates that CTERA is an also-ran because the product is too complicated and too expensive for the average customer. Selling a poor product or a poorly matched product is not notable. WP:N is not just a list of sources, but some sources that actually evaluate the impact that a company has had on the market or the technology. Bringing a product to market is an accomplishment, but that does not make the accomplishment notable. Where are those sources? Glrx (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you're saying that the word "cloud" is irrelevant. I agree, but you should say that to the person bringing it up as an argument instead of me who merely questions it in much the same way you do. You are mistaken that a number of customers is a grade of notability. Same for price of product. There are many notable companies selling very expensive products to very few customers. This, in fact, is part of what makes them notable. Rolls Royce sells much less cars than Volkswagen asking much more money for their product, but that does not make them any less notable. Those points raised by you are irrelevant to deciding about deletion of this article. You continue to state that the article is about a poor product or a poorly matched product. That sounds like WP:OR to me so I ask you to strike or cite that. On Notability you question the impact this company has had, but in doing so, you completely ignore the fact that to create their products, they developed a journaled filesystem which they released to the public domain and which can be found in WP as next3. There you have a perfect example of impact. Lastly you ask for sources but just before that you explain you don't have time to check the sources listed... which should have been done by anybody declaring violation of WP:N or WP:V --DeVerm (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Furthermore, Glrx, your arguments not only irrelevant to WP:N, they are factually false. No article stated that the company has fewer than 700 customers. You have misread a source completely, which was talking about another company. In fact this press release [3] states their "technology has been deployed in thousands of sites". And the Washington Post article did not conclude it is a "poor product", quite the opposite, the conclusion was "I enjoyed my time with the CloudPlug, and it's a great product for more-advanced users", only too expensive for average consumers (which is obvious since the company targets the business market). Not to mention, that the above press release about the Cloud Backup Vendor Landscape reports that CTERA has earned "the highest value score among the evaluated vendors". Marokwitz (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, also, that according to WP:CORP, "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Marokwitz (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said using the word cloud was grounds for deletion, sorry if you got that mistaken impression. Just that the buzzwords obscured most information from the article. I said it should be deleted because it does not show that the company is notable enough with true independent sources. And just echoing that the company makes a product called a "C800" (from the picture looks like the stnadard OEM box from Intel or Dell?) does not explain to me what the contribution was. Now if CTERA indeed developed Next3 then the article should say so (with a source, a quick look seems to indicate some). The article on Next3 has it only in the infobox, not in the body. If some of the keepers worked on making the article more encyclopedic it would have a much better chance of staying around. Maybe the justification is there, but repeating buzzwords is not going to help. W Nowicki (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nowicky, what I read in your Delete !vote is the word "cloud" and stories about companies buying writers lunch and drinks and deserts in order to get positive press. My question is: if that all is not targeted at CTERA then why do you write it here? You claim it's so commercial in style but then you say their development of next3 is not brought forward prominent enough. But I see a section "2 - Products" in the article which clearly lists next3 and has references too (not even needed when they are in the next3 article that is linked I think). OEM boxes: HP sells OEM boxes too. What makes these boxes notable is the software inside. You state that only a rewrite can save the article but I don't see errors in style listed as reasons for deletion. --DeVerm (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Nowicky, the company did develop Next3. The article now clarifies this. I agree that repeating buzzwords is not going to help, that's a fair point. The article should be improved. The problem is that the reliable sources covering the company use the buzzword "cloud" quite frequently, and we generally try to stick to what reliable sources say. Regarding the idea that reliable sources are not actually reliable, that's an absurd claim. We are required to ensure that the details in the article are verifiable, and there is no reason for us to doubt the intentions of well known analyst groups and technology journalists. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about a company that has received enough media attention and reviews in global professional publications to establish notability. I was surprised to see it on the deletion list. There is something fishy about why the nominator, someone who is so interested in cloud computing, wants it gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoodinsky (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
(UTC)

Comment I initially closed this as delete, but it's been suggested that I re-list it with some notes to the participants. This is an unusual step, but I'm going to do it, there's no harm in more talking.
I initially closed this as delete, and when queried I made some notes at User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Scratch that, upon reconsideration, left me certain I had closed correctly. To date, the arguments presented for deletion are more closely aligned with the policies and guidelines that they have referenced. I won't reclose this now that I've contributed, but I'd suggest that in order to avoid deletion by the next admin, they need to adress the issue of the sources provided are significant coverage. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading Aaron's talk page I understand what went wrong: I and I guess others too, have been under the impression that the list of sources brought forward by Marokwitz above, clearly demonstrates compliance with WP:N and WP:V. My reasoning for that is that only 3 of them have been negatively commented upon, of which 1 seems a weak comment. For me and others, it shows that there's still a significant stack of solid sources to back the article. Clearly, this is not how it is interpreted by Aaron and others. The side tracking occurred as a result of experience in other AfD's where invalid arguments that were left unchallenged, counted in the interpretation that resulted in Delete of the article. I'm very happy to see that Aaron looks straight through that.
I picked one source for review: #5 in the reflist, [[4]] which is a review done by CRN and reported by Edward F. Moltzen. After reading the article, one can only accept that they actually put the product through a physical test on which they report that it has passed with flying colors. The editor explains that the product is not for the mass consumer market but "simply makes very good sense for small or mid-sized businesses, or workgroups". Their conclusion: "Ctera's technology and service are elegant, easy and fast to deploy, flexible and cost-effective." I include these quotes to show that points raised by others above are not shared by the experts involved in this article. The source itself is clearly an in-depth, independent one, that conforms to the guidelines as listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and indeed to the primary criteria as listed and explained in that document. --DeVerm (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Another such example that I picked to review is the SmallNetBuilder review of C200 by Tim Higgins [5]. If you read the source you'd see this is not a trivial appearance - the source provides In depth coverage (3 pages) of the company's solution and reflects on setup and went as far as actually disassembling the hardware, and analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the product and the company strategy. This level of attention extends well beyond "merely trivial coverage". Timm Higgins is Managing Editor & CEO of SmallNetBuilder, a tech news publication which appears to be independent of CTERA. This source conforms to the guidelines as listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and specifically to the primary criteria as listed and explained in that document. Marokwitz (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another such example that I picked to review is the LinuxPlanet hands on review of CloudPlug by Paul Ferill. The review is 2 pages long, goes through the setup of the device and the various features and GUI screens. The article mentions CTERA NEXT3, the open source file system by CTERA with support for volume snapshots, and concludes that the product "really does pack a lot of capability into a tiny device" and that it "offers a great solution". This level of attention extends well beyond "merely trivial coverage". According to his bio, Paul Ferill has been writing in the computer trade press for more than 20 years. I assume he is not connected to CTERA. Marokwitz (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity of the closing admin this comment was added after the "relisted" banner chronologically. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marokwitz makes a convincing case. The coverage is extensive, and therefore added together proves notability. It doesn't matter if there isn't much to say. They are notable because everyone is saying it. Dream Focus 01:13, 3 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CTERA_Networks_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069232270"