- Exinda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Article was salted after multiple recreations and deletions per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright concerns. A non-infringing Stub now exists at User:Hass2009/Exinda. Requesting unsalting and move to article space. MLauba (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a non-infringing stub, but I'm concerned about the sources. I think it could be questioned whether those sources are reliable; the second source is the company itself, and the fourth source seems to be talking about a company based in Melbourn, Australia (and if it's the same Exinda, then it's a little concerning that the sources can't agree on whether it's an American or Australian company). To me, all the sources read like infomercials rather than critical reviews.
I'd suggest finding a discussion about Exinda in something like the BBC or the New York Times, or some other rock-solid source, in order to prove that the company is notable.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While sourcing at present may be light (but adequate for a stub), requesting the BBC or the New York Times is most certainly overkill in order to establish that this passes WP:CORP. Further sources include e-week, part of the Ziff-Davis network (RS), The Australian (RS, also highlights that the company operates an R&D center in Melbourne), or PC World magazine, also a RS, CNet.com, still an RS. All relevant to the field the company operates in, more than sufficient to establish WP:N. Regarding the second source, not all references quoted have to establish WP:N, referencing to a more complete product description is an adequate (if slightly spammy) use of primary sources. MLauba (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - Addendum: That the article needs close scrutiny against WP:PROMO, in particular since there is a WP:COI potential, is undeniable. That being said, the company passes WP:GNG and has its place here. The rest is a matter of cleanup. MLauba (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those extra sources would help a lot, if they were in the stub.
The author's clearly more familiar with writing for marketing or promotional purposes than with writing for an encyclopaedia. That's not a crime, but some stylistic tweaks would help a lot. I'd like to see: "delivers WAN optimization and bandwidth management solutions" → "sells computer networking equipment" "has some 2,000 customers in a range of vertical markets" → "has 2000 customers" "is designed to help customers manage their bandwidth and network resources by providing a combination of application visibility, traffic control, network optimization and application acceleration" → "monitors and controls network traffic", and "markets its products through a global network of value added resellers" → anything written in intelligible English. Also, the VARS link doesn't go where the author expects it to go and should probably be redacted. With these changes being considered and the extra sources you list being included, I would recommend unsalt so this stub can go into the mainspace.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I tweaked some of the sentences somewhat, and added the two stronger of the above sources to the article, also clarifying the (relative) uncertainty about the company's geographical location in the process. Please let me know if more is required at this stage. If this gets unsalted and moved while I'm asleep, I suggest that the mover also place {{Notable Wikipedian|Hass2009|editedhere=yes}} on the article's talk page, for full disclosure (assuming this can also be used if the contributor himself is, in practice, not notable himself). MLauba (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If every deletion was taken pursuant to G12, such that the community have never pronounced on the suitability of the topic (even if the copyright-violating content was theoretically G11able), it is not for DRV to evaluate whether the draft provides sourcing sufficient to meet WP:V and WP:N, or even whether the article would survive A7; unsalting, instead, should be automatic (and usually is, AFAIK; I have seen several admins summarily unprotect a page salted because of repeated copyvios when asked by an established user who intends to introduce a new version, and I’ve never understood that there is a consensus against that operation) upon an editor's offering that he/she has a draft that is not a copyvio (we unsalt/permit recreation generally when the community are satisfied that the issue from which deletion followed is resolved, or at least addressed to a point from which a new discussion on the merits of deletion might be had at XfD, but in copyvio cases the requisite showing is made on the face of the article, and no further inquiry is required). Joe (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you think about what Stifle wrote when concurring with you. S Marshall is doing a good job of trying to ensure that the draft, written by the same editor who wrote the copyright violations, doesn't get tagged for speedy deletion or sent to AFD as soon as it arrives in article space. "This isn't what DRV is about." wonkery entirely misses the point that two editors here are working productively on making a potential article better and ensuring that we don't waste time with future deletion discussions that we could prevent from occurring in the first place — the very future deletion discussions that the people agreeing with you are alluding to. And that's not even the only thing that you're missing. See below. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Jahiegel and permit recreation. Of course, nothing prevents AFDing this article at a later stage. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already been through AFD and deleted. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- permit recreation per Jahiegel and Stifle's comments. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend that everyone here now look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exinda Networks, which is the prior AFD discussion that sets the sourcing hurdle that this new draft has to clear. This is not solely about satisfying copyright violation concerns. Applause to S Marshall and MLauba for reviewing these concerns at Deletion Review before even knowing that there was an AFD discussion that raised them. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, thanks, Uncle G. Nevertheless, the point Jahiegel and Stifle both raised is well-taken—and indeed, both those users stand very highly in my esteem. DRV is already a very powerful authority; Wikipedia has plenty of provision for addressing conduct disputes, but in terms of content disputes, DRV is the highest court in the land, in the sense that there is nowhere to appeal a DRV decision. (I've remarked, in jest, that for an editor who disagrees with a DRV closure, a direct appeal to the monarch is the only option.)
It follows that DRV wields enormous power over the encyclopaedia, and that does need to be held in check by a strictly limited remit. I should have said explicitly that my remarks above are not intended as a condition of moving the article to the mainspace, and I omitted to do so, so I will say a mea culpa over this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the grand scheme of things, these remarks nonetheless helped making the proposed stub into something with more staying power, so I'm sure not complaining ;) MLauba (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
