Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluribus Networks

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pluribus Networks

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

I cam close to trying to speedy delete this article recently, but have been subsequently in discussion with the authors, who admit a COI but claim to want to follow Wikipedia notability/NPOV guidelines. Unfortunately I'm not convinced this networking equipment manufacturer meets WP:NCORP notability criteria. It is currently largely based on 'stuff on the internet' (company/director profiles, listing on Crunchbase) and a small number of specialist technology news websites. I've searched for more meaty coverage and was momentarily excited to find articles in the Wall Street Journal and Heraldonline, unfortunately these both turned out to be press releases. Rather than spend time resolving COI issues I think we need to first have the discussion about whether this article should be here at all. My instinct is the company fails WP:GNG and particularly WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in my view the nominally independent sources that do exist are written by newspaper stalwart Phil Space; they're not reprints of press releases, but they're unquestioning regurgitation of material provided by the company (so not really independent), and not significant inasmuch as their purpose is to occupy the gaps around the adverts - I've read a lot of those industry journals, and they'll cover anyone who sends them a nice mass of material that will need a minimum of work to get it into shape.

I think it's also got the "can't get there from here" problem; the entire article is written by Pluribus employees, and if Pluribus were notable and did have an article written about it, little of the existing material would be useful because little independent judgement has been used as to what merits inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a new company, but lots of third party coverage is occurring. Just added to the article's talk page are 10 third party articles that came out in the past couple of weeks, and are not yet cited on the article page. The publishers include The Register and Forbes, who are clearly not "regurgitators".--Peter (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to mention you work for them. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as fails WP:CORP and the GNG. Let's look at the sources in the article. #1 is a scanty statblock. #2 is a statblock "bio" of one of the company's founders, and only mentions the subject in passing, which fails the GNG. #3 is the aforementioned Crunchbase stat block. #4 mentions the company's name, and that's all. #5 and #7 are press release mentions and no more. #6 is a broken link. #8 isn't about the subject at all. Neither is #9, which mentions the subject only in passing. #10 and #11 are virtual blog posts. #12 does seem to be a substantive piece from a reliable source. #13 is from the same site, which doesn't count towards the multiple sources the GNG requires. #14 is a brief bulletpoint mention which doesn't break the GNG's threshold. The rest scarcely mention the subject, when they do at all. Ravenswing 21:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let's look at the sources in the article again. #1 through #7 are there as citations, not to prove WP:CORP. Yes, #5, #6, and #7 (not sure why you think #6 is broken, it works for me) are press releases, but they are by companies OTHER than Pluribus Networks and I will argue that four press releases by Venture Capitalists shows that a number of 3rd parties think the company is interesting. As for #10 and #11, I don't see why you discount SDN Central, they are in the business of providing industry specific (ie. trade) news, is it because their focus is so narrow, I can't find anywhere in the guidelines that says bloggers cannot be used as reliable sources, so I count this as one. So that gives us one for the VC's, one for SDN central, and one for NetworkWorld. I have also just added additional sources, most notably The Register and Forbes. Full disclosure: I am an independent IT consultant who has done some work with Pluribus in the past. ...marc (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So independent, you have never edited any page not related to them. Perhaps you could clarify if they paid you for those edits, or if you are just curiously interested in them? Pinkbeast (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep If you're going to delete this, then you're going to have to delete vast amounts of similarly marginal company pages. It would certainly benefit from a re-write I think, but deleting would be easy to contest. Click on most of Category:Companies based in Palo Alto, California, for instance, and you'll see what I mean (odd - why can't I make that a link?) --gilgongo (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Such articles are routinely nominated for deletion or PRODded as it is. Do you have a genuine ground to advocate Keeping this particular article? Ravenswing 06:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's "Other Stuff Exists", I fear - and for my part, I would not complain if most of those marginal company pages went the same way, especially those written by the company. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced in article and now talk page by a flurry of press releases and their warmed-over equivalents. WP is an encyclopedia, not a blog for start-ups. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2014 (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.