Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8x8

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 speedy keep. Nom hasn't commented, and keep is the clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8x8[edit]

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

Liberalarmb has made a rather vague AfD after complaining in IRC about a lack of sources. Recommending a procedural close if they do not post on this page within 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See previous PROD contested less that a month ago: PRODded by 118.1.188.70 with the summary "Non-notable company, most references are press releases", contested by Liberalartist with the summary "Seems likely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists". --TL22 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the nominator's rationale for deletion, I vote Speedy Keep. The fact that the article is "paid" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Rather, the conflict of interest noticeboard should be consulted instead. --TL22 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree. Nothing should be paid its against the Wikipedia policy. I vote Speedy delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalarmb (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 September 2015
- @Liberalarmb: Which Wikipedia policy prohibits paid editing?—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No policy prohibits paid editing, it only says it should be done with caution. If by "Wikipedia policy" you mean Wikipedia:No paid advocacy, that is a failed proposal. Proposals are not policies. --TL22 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article is not overtly promotional in tone, and it contains independent, reliable sources. A better outcome for this article is continued development and strengthening of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article could use work but subject is notable. Lead paragraph used to be a lot worse [1]... Also very likely redlinked contributors have some connection to the organization (some quite overtly so. see: User talk:8x8pr). They aren't doing too much damage these days however. As for paid contributors, if they are then should disclose but prohibition is largely a conflation of mis-info and opinion propagated by Jimbo. Here's an item that popped up on en.planet.wikimedia.org the other day which speaks to some of that and may be of interest; but I digress. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (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.