Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Another article by a paid editor for a non notable company. The references may look impressive, but they are almost entirely notices and press releases, or awards that do not qualify for notability. The awards of for being a new company, which is what "fastest-growing" almost always means. In Wikipedia terms, the meaning of that is "not yet notable" "Best places to work" is a trivial award, and should not even be included in articles. An award from the communication company Polycom is an award from a business partner, and meaningless for notability. As a low point of absurdity, one of the references is for running Linux on one of its servers! As for promotionalism, the effort in the Awards section to show the importance of unimportant awards makes it clear enough.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be quickly removed it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. The only usable-ish sources are local, which is not enough to show notability. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

orangemoody is but an example of the problem. Best guess is that we have so far identified fewer than half the articles that ring is responsible for, but that would still just be about 1000. My estimate is that we have at least 50,000 articles of this sort on organizations, and at least an equal number on individuals associated with them. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DGG and Kudpung said it all. Re Nextiva's "independent coverage", read http://www.nextiva.com/voip/the-power-of-the-press-release.html and then read`http://www.nextiva.com/company/news.html (Nextiva.com is blacklisted, hence no live links). Companies that hire expensive PR firms get even more of this bogus "coverage". See:

Felix Salmon (November 23, 2010). "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR", Columbia Journalism Review

It should be required reading in assessing the notability of business-related articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not Delete. I don't see anything wrong. Why delete this page I am sure they will make the right changes give them a chance. Look at what they are doing right. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/techflash/2015/06/how-nextiva-plans-toreinvent-businesses-phone.html please don't delete this page. "fastest-growing" was back then. Give them a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yet another press release-based puff piece from the local business newspaper consisting of Nextiva's's CEO and VP touting their own company. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbhg7: Please disclose per WP:AFDFORMAT whether you have a vested interest in the article, see WP:AVOIDCOI.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Kudpung I have nothing to do with that page. I am just saying its worth to keep the page and not remove it. This page brings users useful information. And I am not affiliated with the company. Maybe some references need to change its not a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Verbhg7 has been indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*I would also agree with Verbhg7 to Keep this page alive. Just stumbled across the discussion. I am also not associated with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingglass (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 September 2015 — Kingglass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Just stumbled...' Kingglass - Looks like you hit the ground running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kingglass:has been indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome I would just like to welcome Verbng7 and Kingglass and congratulate them on their very first edits [1] [2]. I hope they become productive members of the Wikipedia community. It usually takes a couple hundred edits, minimum, for new users to start in at AfD so these guys are way ahead of the curve. Jbh ^Talk 20:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment What an amazing coincident that one registers as an editor 15 minutes after the other, with an identical style of writing. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-serving promotion has no place on Wikipedia. Just wanted to be on the record before it's SNOW closed. — Brianhe (talk) 06:07, 15 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.