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 no consensus. After an extensive discussion there is no consensus here. A Traintalk 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nextiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another paid promotional article for this company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sourcing is primary, passing mention, local, routine announcements, contributer articles and non reliable sources. (Wow, Nextiva participated in the Ice bucket challenge, let's put that in an encyclopedia). The same sort of crap sourcing that has been rejected multiple times. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that, upon closer examination, much of the other coverage is weak, and I think that this article should be trimmed and be revised. But the sources that do exist are enough for me to keep, and I think we should stick to revising the article, rather than deleting it, per WP:ATD. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does fulfill the criteria of notability though, in the sense that it is actually mentioned on these few reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it absolutely does not and your comment displays a commonly recurrent misinterpretation of the criteria for establishing notability. There must be two references that are "intellectually independent". The "independent" in the phrase "independent source" does not just apply to the publisher but also to the article itself. For example, an independent reliable source might accurately publish, word for word, a company announcement and lets assume the article is attributed to a named journalist. This reference would fail the criteria for establishing notability as it is essentially a PRIMARY source, not intellectually independent, and fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing++ 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ACCentral is a local branch of USA Today--the main newspaper is of course a RS for N, but the regional version are for local news not appropriate for national coverage. That Forbes etc. have invested a lot of money in their publication does not make everything they print reliable. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The corporate culture of USA Today is one that produces award winning journalism. If the " USA Today corporate tree" is very healthy, it makes perfect sense that the branches would be healthy as well. As far as Forbes, Inc. etc. investing a very substantial amount of in their publications and thus their brand, they are astute enough business people not to harm their brand with the practice of spurious/unreliable information via their contributors.Knox490 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow, you declared about Nextiva: "an unremarkable software company selling VoIP software." Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple Inc., said about Nextiva: "I'm a big fan of companies like Nextiva."[7] It is fair to say that most people, including myself, would tend to believe that Wozniak is very knowledgeable about the tech industry.Knox490 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see trivial coverage, but rather more coverage than most of the Wikipedia articles get. If we are going to apply this logic, then I really wonder how many % of articles will remain. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duffbeerforme, have you read WP:NPA? You are in violation of this policy, which mandates that you must refrain from making personal attacks. Also, I noted your edit summary, which said "lier". If I was a lion, that noun might be appropriate but I think you meant to say "liar", although that ad hominem is also wrong. With two mistakes in a row, I believe that your nomination is a third mistake. Several other editors have also corroborated the fact that those sources provide in-depth coverage of a well known company, Nextiva. Repeatedly making false claims about the sources does not make them true, it just simply highlights your unwarranted zeal to delete the article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was a spelling mistake, it was meant to be liar. Not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. You claim that CNBC has provided in-depth coverage of Nextiva. Lets look at that claim. What did the article you linked say about Nextiva? "James Murphy, VP of inside sales at Nextiva". That's all? Yes that's all. Which part of that is in depth coverage about Nextiva? Nope, nothing even remotely close to being, even by the most generous sycophant to be thought of being in-depth coverage. That you say it is is a bald face lie. You state that "Repeatedly making false claims about the sources does not make them true" yet you keep making false claims about the sources. Hmmm. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. ABC is not the source, but the local affiliate station. Rhadow (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True true, another part of Renzoy's deception. ABC 15 not ABC, and that's specifically KNXV-TV, not any of the other affiliates labeled the same. I'd updated the article to better reflect the truth. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the content can still be trimmed, such a lot of the "philanthropy" section and some elsewhere. I lean towards "keep" (the article seems borderline, but it's enough for me), but the article still needs additional improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If good sourcing is supposedly so easy to find, a News Search would've imaginably given them all in these 2 pages but it's not, and it's worse when the company made it clear it was their own press releases published and republished, thus contrary to significant independent coverage. Equally, we cannot alone simply believe sources must exist, without knowing they're substantial to begin with. When an article is accepted again, it's obvious to say the past deletions are and can be taken into mind as they are here; promotionalism serves nothing for the encyclopedia's principles which are pillars (which cannot be said about general guidelines). It's easier to claim an article is fixable than instead actually showing and accomplishing it in the end. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. The article has a number of reliable sources and some of them are from respected, high profile publications in the business realm. The article meets WP:GNG standards. desmay (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken about that - Renzoy above said "...not to mention leading newspapers like the Chicago Tribune" as bolstering Nextiva's notability and I had assumed the ref-linkage they mentioned in that post was in the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting keep only because another user has, is not yet addressing the important concerns emphasized so far: Promotioanlism and how it can be guaranteed not to happen again, despite the last 3 deletions and 1 Draft occurrence. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the company routinely showing up when experts count off major players in the field? Obviously the experts think it's notable. Problem here is that there is not a lack of sources, but over abundance. When I Google search the name I get hundreds of thousands of hits, which is more than a PR department can buy, and thousands in news and books. Needs more time, to make headway through all of that. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Renzoy had mentioned the Community Contributor column above (as helping to prove the notability of the company) and I had thought the link was used as a reference in the WP-article itself - my mistake. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected on one of the Forbes articles...it is by "Forbes staff".  I've now marked that citation as "Forbes staff", and eight blogs with template Self-published source.  It is not easy to tell if these authors have sufficient reputation to be WP:RS, but without more evidence I think they should be removed.  Each of the eight citations is only used once.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged four additional sources in the article with Template:Self-published source: 2 Entrepreneur, 1 Buzzfeed, and 1 CIO magazine.  This makes a total of eight sources in the article that are blogs. 
    The Inc article, alleged above to be a blog, I could not confirm.  The Inc article states that the writer is an Inc columnist, whose opinions (without mentioning his facts) do not represent Inc.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since these blogs are a known problem from previous AfDs, I also checked the AfC history, and what was happening is that the reviewers, who knew about the blogs, used their time to rant on about for-profits, instead of identifying sources that needed removal.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In German, the "notability" requirements are here https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Wirtschaftsunternehmen . It says, for businesses, notability is given for companies with 100 million EUR or more in turnover (which Nextiva has). It also allows companies that have a dominant position in the market, which Nextiva also has since there are only 3 big VOIP services. The rationale for why the notability requirements are defined as such is that, because companies like those are so big, it'll be useful for society to include them in encyclopedias. For example, a potential employee might want to know more about that company or a potential investor might want to learn about that company. Not including a big company in the encyclopedia hinders society. At least on Wikipedia, there'll be a neutral point of view on what the company's page says, whereas, with other sources, who knows what people will post.
In English, the notability requirements are defined by press coverage. I'm not gonna repeat what other editors said but, yeah, there's enough coverage to make an argument for "keep".
So, in conclusion, I say "keep" because there's enough press coverage to meet WP:N and it'l be best for society. The article says they have 700 employees and are rapidly hiring. A few interviewees might be interested in what Wikipedia has to say about this company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would be delighted to have us adopt some version of the deWP system-- I consider it much more realistic than our focus of the details of sourcing. But I think that while $100 million would have made sense 10 years ago,, we would probably now want a higher level--and a much higher level for financial companies. A dominent position makes sense, but one of the top 3 is not what in english is meant by dominant, which rather means leading company, which this one is not. Hswever, I think the standard of what an investor or potential employee might want to know is exactly wrong: such content is promotional--the place for a companhy to give information to those groups is on its web site, since it is meant to encourage investment of staffing; we have no need to duplicateit. Rather, an encyclopedia gives information of interest to general readers who may have heard of the company and want some basic factual inforomation--which is very different from what it would want to say to attract customers, staa, or investors. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"If we don't want articles like this" Exactly correct, we never want promotional articles as by policy WP:Not promotion. That's not to say an RfC about separating good promotion from the opposite, but that there would be against our fundamental policies, including WP:Not advocate. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there. Except you need to quote the whole sentence, not just the part that you want to use to justify your position. I never said to keep promotional articles. I said promotional can easily be removed. The sentence you misquoted talks about notability. I see some people saying that the company is insignificant. Insignificant and notable are two different things. I feel that the threshold for notability on companies is too low - as I think many other people do as well. However, until those standards are raised, "articles like this" that meet the basic guideline should be kept.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid foundations" cannot be the case when this article has been extensively edited by the company employees themselves, therefore a Terms of Use violation without the necessary disclosure, which was the case here. Sources wouldn't ever matter if the foundation is on a "Using Wikipedia for promotion" one. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence suggesting this article has been exclusively editted by their employees against policy save for one editor who declared as per policy regarding COI here. The created article respects the policies around COI which is declaring it. You have rightly put that "it was the case" and currently it is not. I am also irked by companies that try to dilute quality on Wikipedia by riding on its reputation to gain any form of mileage in terms of publicity. To me this looks like a case of deleting this content just because the very first one was done by an SPI without really wanting to look the other way at the information and its verifiability . BTW, not all content created by SPIs has been deleted from Wikipedia although most of it has because it is inappropriate. At times they flood Wikipedia with good edits to hide their motives. This to me looks like one of those that ought to remain. Other editors have also taken their precious time to tone it down where it has gone out of the way which is WIKIPEDIA:ATD.I am in no way suggesting we condone such behavior but we should approach such investigations with WP:AGF. 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You talk about terms of use violation. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe duffbeerforme called that out above as user Renzoy16 created the page. The creator's talk page discloses that they created the article for pay so how would that be a TOU violation? Maybe I am missing something here. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what the article states, Nextiva has NOT been placed on the "2017 Deloitte 2017 Technology Fast 500™ Awards", those particular rankings won't be be announced until November 9th 2017 (see Deloitte's own website).
In 2016 Nextiva was ranked at 423 (see Deloitte's own information).
In 2015 Nextiva was ranked at 287.
In 2014 Nextiva was ranked at 80.
In 2013 Nextiva wasn't ranked. (See this).
In 2012 and before it appears Nextiva wasn't ranked.
That's all. Shearonink (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2017 (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.
More