Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Definity

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. We gave this another week but we still have no cast iron reliable sources to rely on for this product. Keep arguments are mostly vague waves at sourcing or assertions and neither of these are sufficient to overcome the clear evidence from the delete side that reasonably thorough searches have failed to turn up anything substantial we can rely on. S.marshall has found a product comparison chart that he views as one source but has nothing more. Dreamfocus provides what they assert is a second source but this is debunked by Phil Bridger as an advertising supplement so this isn't enough. What else here? I can't accept DGG's argument that we can simkply fill the article with manufacturer sources product description as is skirts over the requirement to first show notability to keep the argument. With regard to a redirect, I don't think I need to find on that as its an editorial action not an adminstrative one but I am taken by DGG's argument that we should not merge to the main article as this material is too product specific for that. So, on balance, the consensus based on policy is that we do not host this material because there is not quite enough sourcing to meet GNG/N although V is met. I find no consensus on a redirect so will leave that for editorial judgement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 December 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Avaya Definity

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

Disputed prod, difficulty in locating RS to establish GNG, written somewhat as an ad No unique names 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puffery, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found 58 news article on Highbeam (some may be PR derived). The article needs to properly referenced, shortened and cast in an encyclopedic tone. - Mr X 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A SET does not prove notability. Reliable, in-repth coverage is required. --No unique names 20:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a historic product of Lucent that was wiki-moved by an editor to a new title on 8 December 2006‎. This is only part of a concerted effort by the nominator to purge many historical product pages from Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Highbeam articles appear to be nothing but press releases. These are not "historical products". They are not notable. These wiki articles appear to be created by ad agencies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A significant and notable product in its sphere, with ample third party coverage. Article needs work, not deletion. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could point to a few such sources? --No unique names 22:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is yet another Avaya article that is well below the threshold for inclusion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting, this is not an Avaya product article. I have said this before but I guess you did not hear me: this is a historic product of Lucent that was wiki-moved by an editor to a new title on 8 december 2006‎. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable mistake given that it has Avaya in the article title wouldn't you agree? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable Lucent product as the last purely circuit-based PBX. Improve, not delete... / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is a bit of a mess, but product is notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable based on what standard? Specific sources to pass notability guidelines have not been provided. --No unique names 20:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that nobody in this discussion has addressed the potential sources found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination statement. Those links are there to inform the discussion, not to be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not equate to notability for a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying we should ignore all the specific notability guidelines and the WP "case law" that has been built up? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, which specific references did you see that were significant enough to meet WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read them, because this subject bores me. I was just pointing out that nobody can come to an informed opinion that this article should be deleted without first checking them. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider the possibility that those of us who did look at such results found nothing supporting a keep? --No unique names 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mind reader. If you don't explain where you have looked for sources then I can only assume that you have have looked nowhere beyond the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead attacking each other for sources both of you arguably haven't seen yet, why don't you both find any potential sources, link them here and then discuss/rebut the sources. This is just silly; both of you who should know better, this is going nowhere. Secret ^account 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret, I asked based on my previous experience seeing BEFORE thrown about with any hint that an editor didn't check for sources. I did check and did not find anything acceptable. When I ascertained that Mr. Bridger did not seem to mean anything unpleasant but simply did not know that I had checked, I did not feel it necessary to push the issue. Others are free to repeat my sources or any other, as I'm as capable of mistakes as anyone and may have overlooked something. --No unique names 03:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting directions To establish consensus we need specific discussion of what sources are independent and reliable and how this pages meets the GNG. Assertions are worthless arguments and do not count to consensus. Evidence your opinion with reference to policy or the closing admin will ignore your vote. Please note that this has already been listed at DRV over an NAC close so this should be left to an admin to close. 'k? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Avaya and Lucent are basically the same, this shouldn't be a reason for deletion or keeping. Someone with knowledge on this subject needs to find sources, because a quick Google search by me didn't show very much at all. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of WP:GHITS, but I am unable to locate any reliable, non-trivial, independent sources that would satisfy the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@:VQuakr, I am trying to understand the rationale for your Delete vote – are you saying that this article should be deleted because you have not found any online refs?

For those who think this is a reasonable approach, I dare you to look at the history of the IBM and check after how many edits the first online reference was introduced to the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBM was notable - sources unquestionably existed whether or not they had been added to the article or not. However, looking at other stuff will not help achieve consensus for the notability of this article. The general notability guideline is the most basic standard we use to determine if a subject is notable enough to warrant an article; if you are aware of sources for this subject that meet the guideline, please share them so I can reassess my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once the hype is removed, there is absolutely nothing here. It's all just ad-agency fluff. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unimpressed by the quality of this debate so far. I find the view expressed by Alan Liefting significantly at odds with Wikipedian norms. Alan Liefting's statement that sources do not equate to notability for a WP article is bizarre, and it's not the first time I've seen him say this either. I'd be grateful if Alan Liefing could desist from saying this in future. Sources are the essence of notability, full stop.
I also find little merit in the view expressed by Sue Rangell. Her comments focus on the current state of the article rather than its potential state, which is clearly the wrong approach. We don't delete material because it's bad. We delete material because it's bad and unfixable.
Many of the google books results are passing mentions of no interest, and a significant number of them arise from full page ads in networking magazines that were taken out by Avaya. However, I see that on page 45 of Network World Magazine, Vol 19 No 8 dated 25 February 2002, there is a clear product comparison in tabular form; this is in large type on a coloured background and very clearly treats at least one variant of the Avaya Definity as a significant type of product. I also see that the independent reviewer scores it well against its competitors. If I'd found a second such thing, I would take that as clear evidence of notability. I have not.
I also want to say that if we distilled everything from those sources into an encyclopaedia article, we'd have about four sentences. Tops. It's right that such things, even when they're notable, should be consolidated into another article that contains a more useful amount of information.
From the fact that I can find one but only one source, I conclude that this article concerns a subject which is verifiable but not notable. It should not have a standalone article. The outcome of this debate cannot be "keep". However, per policy we should exhaust the alternatives to deletion before turning this title into a redlink, and I observe that there are good alternatives available, so the outcome of this debate cannot be "delete". I conclude that we should replace the content with a redirect to Avaya#Products.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't make something notable. In depth coverage in reliable sources makes a subject notable. Note that such is lacking for this product. --No unique names 20:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for helpfully repeating what I said immediately above.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is informative not promotional. Basically straightforward information can be supported by manufacturer's sources. Merging into ayala is excessive--they have so many products that the article could not possibly deal with it. The existing merges into Ayala are a one line listing for each product, giving only its name. With that sort of way of handling merge conclusions, a merge is inappropriate. A merge into the general type of product might be, for the detail is more extensive than we usually have. I cannot understand how any of this is "ad agency fluff " or "hype" -- it's simply product details, not claims for the product's excellence or reasons why someone should buy it. I ask Susan, above to indicate just what part of the material she thinks other than purely descriptive. (It's true a technical advertisement would contain a detailed product description, but it would contain much else--pricing, contact information, praise of the product. An overlap between encyclopedic articles of products and advertising is inevitable, & the overlap will be greater for technical products, which are normally advertised much more soberly; but eliminating a description of the product would make any article on a manufactured substance impossible and meaningless.) DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This deletion discussion was already closed as Keep on Dec 5, 2012. So why is it still here? Is this part of the wholesale removal of articles that were under the umbrella of the Nortel deleted wiki-project some of which have already been removed while others are still in the deletion pipeline? Ottawahitech (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that there is some sort of sinister conspiracy is hardly likely to help persuade other editors to take your arguments seriously. A perfectly clear explanation was provided above of why the "keep" close was reverted and the discussion relisted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorting through all the Google book/magazine results, I came across this. [1] It talks about the "Avaya Definity" and also mentions: Nearly a million customers -- including 90% of the FORTUNE 500 -- rely on Avaya solutions. Page 15 of CIO magazine, Jun 15, 2002. It mentions what the Avaya Definity servers can do, in sufficient enough detail. Dream Focus 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source is actually from page 15 of an advertising supplement to CIO magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2012 (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.