269:, I made significant changes/deletions to the content in this article to bring it in compliance. Note that Butler Group is a well respected IT analyst firm and they have repeatedly covered this company. The Butler write-ups cannot be accessed on their site as their clients buy them for thousands of dollars. Microsoft holds Ericom in high regard and references them on the home page of one of their key technologies. Ericom was the first product to be certified for a strategic Microsoft technology, this is a major accomplishment. Also this company has been covered by major IT publications, such as eWeek, Information Week and Healthcare IT News. These are not advertisements, they are solid news articles.
388:
significant coverage, if this coverage is obviously dominantly promotional in nature then the question arises as to how neutral and reliable the source is and how much the source is repeating company PR. Please find good sources which give not just glowing, promotional stories but give real unbiased facts about the company and then I'm sure this article will not be deleted. I am afraid I can do little else but assume you are employed by Ericom because you have been on wikipedia for two years and done little else but advertise Ericom so please do not act hurt.
140:
links are to ad-type promotional write ups). The most notable thing is that it was the 46th fastest expanding technology company in Israel in 2005 and grew by 65% in that year (65% from what it doesn't say). I also tagged this article for SPAM and although some of the advert language has been removed by
Pitvipper (along with the tag) it is still obviously non-encyclopedic and I cannot see with the references given how this could become encyclopedic, it has had plenty of opportunity.
481:
All techy/business articles obviously originating from press releases either from Ericom or SCO who have 'teamed up' with Ericom (quotes in articles are all from various members of Ericom or SCO). I'm not saying this is definitely not notable but I would hope that we could apply better standards. I'm
372:
Please do not make any assumptions about my status with this company. I did more than simply "remove as little text...". I removed MOST of the text in the article, explained misunderstandings about some of the anlayst comments and added another
Microsoft reference. For your information, none of the
357:
Pitvipper, you seem to be an employee of Ericom
Software and so I know you have a job to do. However, if you had addressed the tags why did three other editors look at the article and suggest deletion. The answer is simple, you didn't address the tags but simply removed as little text as you thought
327:
Thanks
Pitvipper. But please take note. Maybe if you had provided better references and removed the huge amount of advertising jargon, which filled the entire article, instead of removing the notability and spam tags twice then this wouldn't have been an AfD debate. This debate should run its course
342:
Polargeo, let's keep this professional and courteous. You can easily see that I did delete much of the content in the article with which you had an issue, per your suggestion. I thought those changes would bring the article into compliance and hence removed the tags. Per my comments above, this
303:
Thanks for the clarification on the Butler write-ups, that actually explains quite a bit. I restored the AfD tag, as there isn't yet a consensus to close this discussion as a speedy keep or speedy close - typically AfD discussions run the full seven days even if a clear consensus forms to keep or
358:
you could get away with along with the tags, you did this twice and then you even removed the AfD tag. Now if you can comply with wikipedia guidelines and prove that the company is notable, as the tags were trying to assist you in doing, then great but please try to follow and respect consensus.
139:
Not notable (spam). I tagged this article twice for notability and
Pitvipper removed the tag both times. The references and links given are obvious adverts for the company and not really proper news items in reliable sources (even if the Butler group could be considered reliable these particular
387:
An industry magazine can still get its stories straight from company press releases. If the quotes are obviously complete ad speak and unencyclopedic it really doesn't matter where they come from we cannot build an encyclopedic article on them. A reliable source still needs to give the company
559:
Further on the topic of PR, while it's understood that Press
Releases are not reliable coverage, however, when major trade publications write articles based on that PR, that is reliable coverage. In addition, I am reiterating that there has been significant coverage that was not PR based.
373:
text that was removed was actually written by me, it was all taken directly from quotes in IT analyst reviews and trade journals, and frankly is quite relevant for this technology sector. This company is a leader in their field and I can provide you with many more third-party references.
504:) which is a review from a noted analyst. In reference to your comment about other articles originating from Press Releases, these publications receive thousands of Releases a week and cover only those that they deem to be notable.
343:
company is notable in that they have breakthrough technology, a unique partnership with
Microsoft, have been covered by a top IT analyst, have been covered by editors of top IT trade magazines.
496:
Polargeo, there are seveal articles that obviously do not originate from press releases, nor do they have any quotes from Ericom or one of their partners. These are in the Ericom article: (
224:
left me with two sentences. There might be a valid claim to notability with the award the company has won, but at a bare minimum this needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten. -
501:
194:
Ericom comes to market with
Desktop Virtualization and Presentation Virtualization solutions that are simple to implement, have a small footprint and are extremely cost-effective
160:
132:
196:-- if it's obvious advertising, lawyering over notability is beside the point, but I would note that it would appear to be referenced only to trade websites with
497:
402:
I added two more independent analyst reviews of this company's technology and also referenced the company's stock ticker as they are a public company.
502:
http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2008/07/03/who-s-missing-what-a-checklist-of-what-each-vendor-needs-to-get-to-vdi-by-2010.aspx
328:
though and I don't prejudge the outcome. It looks like you still think the way to solve things is removing the tags as you removed the AfD tag.
449:
62:
250:
but not speedy; if the company were notable there would be enough that could be rescued to form a stub article. I removed the speedy tag.
99:
94:
374:
344:
103:
17:
86:
498:
http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Reviews/Ericom-PowerTerm-WebConnect-Challenges-Citrixs-XenApp-on-Desktop-Virtualization/
590:
36:
464:
192:, in other words, you probably aren't going to find this on the shelves at Best Buy. Blurby, obvious ad-speak --
444:
589:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
569:
554:
540:
536:
513:
491:
476:
411:
397:
382:
378:
367:
352:
348:
337:
322:
318:
292:
261:
242:
238:
209:
175:
149:
68:
273:
171:
450:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/server_virtualization/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207801422
436:
90:
565:
550:
509:
407:
288:
281:
52:
49:
487:
459:
393:
363:
333:
145:
472:
167:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
545:
Agreed, that's why I highlighted articles and product reviews that did not originate from PR
221:
217:
197:
205:
185:
82:
74:
519:
561:
546:
505:
403:
284:
277:
190:
software for enterprise-wide application access for server-based computing environments
518:
It doesn't matter whether the publications choose to cover certain PR's over others,
483:
389:
359:
329:
257:
141:
468:
120:
532:
314:
234:
201:
465:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Array-Ericom-Team-Up-Against-Citrix/
445:
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/sco-push-web-services-ericom-alliance-815
252:
454:
525:
307:
227:
583:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
460:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13016776_ITM
439:
shows significant coverage by reliable secondary sources:
500:) that is obviously a product review, or this article (
127:
116:
112:
108:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
593:). No further edits should be made to this page.
161:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
155:
520:press releases are not reliable coverage
159:: This debate has been included in the
455:http://events.sys-con.com/node/642398
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
188:for a non-consumer software firm:
24:
1:
220:the article and removing the
198:limited readership and reach
610:
586:Please do not modify it.
570:13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
555:13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
541:13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
514:11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
492:10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
477:16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
412:16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
398:14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
383:13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
368:12:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
353:12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
338:06:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
323:03:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
293:21:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
262:20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
243:16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
210:14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
176:11:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
150:07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
69:23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
482:probably wrong though.
304:delete before then. -
186:obvious advertising
44:The result was
539:
321:
296:
276:comment added by
241:
178:
164:
601:
588:
531:
313:
295:
270:
233:
165:
130:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
609:
608:
604:
603:
602:
600:
599:
598:
597:
591:deletion review
584:
529:
311:
271:
231:
202:Smerdis of Tlön
126:
97:
83:Ericom Software
81:
78:
75:Ericom Software
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
607:
605:
596:
595:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
557:
523:
462:
457:
452:
447:
441:
440:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
305:
298:
297:
264:
245:
225:
218:"De-adverting"
212:
179:
137:
136:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
606:
594:
592:
587:
581:
571:
567:
563:
558:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
528:
527:
521:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
458:
456:
453:
451:
448:
446:
443:
442:
438:
434:
431:
430:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
310:
309:
302:
301:
300:
299:
294:
290:
286:
283:
279:
275:
268:
265:
263:
259:
255:
254:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
230:
229:
223:
219:
216:
215:Speedy Delete
213:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
182:Speedy delete
180:
177:
173:
169:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
585:
582:
524:
432:
375:96.56.217.34
345:96.56.217.34
306:
266:
251:
247:
226:
214:
193:
189:
181:
168:TexasAndroid
156:
138:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
437:Google News
272:—Preceding
562:Pitvipper
547:Pitvipper
506:Pitvipper
404:Pitvipper
285:Pitvipper
278:Pitvipper
533:says you
484:Polargeo
390:Polargeo
360:Polargeo
330:Polargeo
315:says you
274:unsigned
235:says you
142:Polargeo
133:View log
537:says me
469:Rankiri
319:says me
239:says me
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
248:Delete
128:delete
104:delete
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
566:talk
551:talk
530:...
522:. -
510:talk
488:talk
473:talk
433:Keep
408:talk
394:talk
379:talk
364:talk
349:talk
334:talk
312:...
289:talk
282:talk
267:Keep
258:talk
232:...
206:talk
200:. -
172:talk
157:Note
146:talk
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
253:DGG
222:POV
166:--
568:)
553:)
535:,
512:)
490:)
475:)
467:—
435:.
410:)
396:)
381:)
366:)
351:)
336:)
317:,
291:)
260:)
237:,
208:)
184:,
174:)
163:.
148:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:♠
48:.
564:(
549:(
526:2
508:(
486:(
471:(
406:(
392:(
377:(
362:(
347:(
332:(
308:2
287:(
280:(
256:(
228:2
204:(
170:(
144:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.