219:. - Regarding the alleged 'sneaky and brazen' spam by company employees, rather than deleting the article, why not contact the offenders and educate them? I have recently done so, and suggested that instead of placing marketing material on the wiki, they place simple factual information about the company, and a light overview of it's products, and if people are interested commercially, to then allow them to view the company's website and see the marketing speak for themselves. They have followed my advice on this. If I am wrong, why not email them yourself and provide more correct advice?
335:: "rivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I'm always willing to support an article if it can be shown there's a reason to keep it, but...I don't see it here. More independent sources (Infoworld reviews of one product aren't enough) would help.
215:- I would suggest the company and some mention of it's products is notable, despite a lack of secondary sources at this time. The company provides employment to more than 125 people, and it's products are installed on all inhabited continents. As a company it is not significantly more or less notable than
290:
Contacting a contributor with a genuine attempt at education is somehow a bad thing?? A careful examination of the history brings one to the conclusion that the nomination is a result of the frustration of one editor who kept having content reverted, and without contacting or otherwise attempting to
211:- So what if the article was re-created from a deleted article? I was the one who wrote the original article, and halfway through drafting it, someone speedily deleted it because it wasn't notable. Gee, I hadn't even finished writing it. Just because it was deleted does not mean it is spam.
285:
Why is the debate for deletion of the page focusing on the behaviour of the company being described? I would suggest the company's behaviour, whilst certainly is in part spam, is mostly complete stupidity through ignorance. But that's not what is being discussed
190:
According to history of this article, it was copied from a previously deleted article on July 8, 2007. Its most certainly advertising. A company officer placed this ad on this article's talk page
260:. It is indeed sneaky and brazen to post advertising on any article's talkpage on Knowledge...and contacting an employee of this company only alerts them that their spamming is effective.
295:
which was just prior to the unwashed at Epygi contributing to the article fits in with content guidelines a bit better? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater....
139:
331:
is the primary (or maybe only) reason being advanced to keep this article. That seems to be trying to gloss over the appearance that the company is
291:
educate the offending contributors, has instead nominated the page for deletion. Why not instead let's look at the content? Maybe this revision
256:. Karl, I would suggest that you should have left the company's obvious spamming on the article's talkpage instead of removing it
17:
61:
366:
106:
101:
36:
365:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
110:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
93:
216:
315:
300:
273:
224:
199:
68:
236:
Aastra is 14 times the size by employees of this company and even their article has no sources.
97:
351:
319:
304:
277:
242:
228:
203:
172:
160:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
89:
81:
344:
332:
261:
187:
49:
328:
311:
296:
269:
220:
195:
53:
237:
167:
155:
127:
253:
183:
151:
147:
338:
327:- Discussions of editor education and specific edits aside, it looks like
310:
I concur. That edit may have been more acceptable. Just no spam, please.
359:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
191:
194:
titled 'Dear Wiki Users.' How sneaky and brazen is that?
146:
Article fails to show "Significant coverage" required by
292:
257:
134:
123:
119:
115:
150:and has no reliable secondary sources required by
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
369:). No further edits should be made to this page.
166:Forgot to mention, this is a contested prod.
8:
252:I agree with Bjweeks. This company fails
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
386:
352:22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
320:19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
305:13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
278:07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
243:16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
229:11:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
204:10:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
173:14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
161:08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
76:10:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
362:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
333:really not so notable
217:Aastra_Technologies
50:non-notable company
329:other stuff exists
44:The result was
350:
268:under any guise.
241:
171:
159:
48:as an apparently
377:
364:
349:
347:
341:
336:
240:
170:
158:
137:
131:
113:
73:
66:
58:
34:
385:
384:
380:
379:
378:
376:
375:
374:
373:
367:deletion review
360:
345:
339:
337:
133:
104:
88:
85:
69:
62:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
383:
381:
372:
371:
355:
354:
322:
288:
287:
280:
266:not acceptable
247:
246:
245:
213:
212:
206:
176:
175:
144:
143:
84:
79:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
382:
370:
368:
363:
357:
356:
353:
348:
342:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
284:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
244:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
218:
210:
207:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
177:
174:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
157:
153:
149:
141:
136:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
83:
80:
78:
77:
74:
72:
67:
65:
59:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
361:
358:
324:
289:
282:
265:
249:
214:
208:
179:
145:
70:
63:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
209:Strong Keep
312:Artene50
297:Karl2620
270:Artene50
221:Karl2620
196:Artene50
140:View log
283:Comment
262:WP:SPAM
250:Comment
188:WP:SPAM
107:protect
102:history
340:Frank
325:Delete
180:Delete
135:delete
111:delete
46:delete
346:talk
286:here.
138:) – (
128:views
120:watch
116:links
90:Epygi
82:Epygi
56:jonny
16:<
316:talk
301:talk
293:here
274:talk
258:here
254:WP:N
225:talk
200:talk
192:here
186:and
184:WP:N
182:per
152:WP:V
148:WP:N
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
52:. --
264:is
343:|
318:)
303:)
276:)
238:BJ
227:)
202:)
168:BJ
156:BJ
154:.
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
314:(
299:(
272:(
223:(
198:(
142:)
132:(
130:)
92:(
71:t
64:m
60:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.