|
Aqua Connect (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD)
Blatant promotion of product/Entry is not notable
I am trying to get an article on an IT company called Aqua Connect up on Wikipedia. My original post was deleted because it was deemed as a promotional tool and blatant advertising. Editor Pegasus deleted the article. The original post included information about their product and why the product was so important. For example, it explained how it lowers IT costs, is affective in reducing energy costs for businesses going green, increases security of files and computing in the work place. These are all important thing that show why the technology is significant to people and businesses today. I listened to Pegasus' request and took that section out. Following that Pegasus asked me for my references. In my original build I did not add a reference section because I did not know how to. I just included links. Now that I know how to make a proper reference section I told Pegasus that I think my article would meet Wiki's criteria. I sent Pegasus a few of my links for my sources, and he told me that they did not show why the company was notable or worthy of an article. I highly doubt that Pegasus is knowledgeable about IT companies and terminals server technology, because if he was he would not say that. This company is the FIRST company to create a terminal server for the Mac. The technology has been available for the Windows platform for quite some time now. A company called Citrix developed the technology. Aqua Connect was the company to figure it out for the Mac. How this can be deemed not notable is beyond me. In the IT world and the world of terminal servers and access virtualization, this is huge! Pegasus also commented that my references were not reliable stating that they were only blogs. Well, one of the article was a blog from ZDNet! The blog is a web page by two of the most trusted names and experts in Access Virtualization! That has to be credible. Other sources included a Computer World article, a Macsimum article, and an Ars Technica article. These are trusted names in computer technology, and they are full articles that talk about the company. How they can be dismissed is a unfair and doesn't make sense. Your articles on terminal server and access virtualization are incomplete on Wikipedia without Aqua Connect. The company deserves a page as they were the pioneers of technology that now has been adopted by many companies and institutions. I know two companies who personally use the technology. I can add even more references. This was just an initial build to get the page started so that other people could edit and add to it. I think I have done away with anything that can be seen as advertising, and have also made a valid point as to the notability of the company. Thank you for your review. I am dedicated to getting an acceptable article up on Wiki.
I think it is also important to note that the editor Pegasus has been very rude, unprofessional, and sarcastic to my responses in the talk page. Every time he offers help, he finds it necessary to add a sarcastic remark and be rude. He does not represent Wikipedia our its editors in a professional manner. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.134.162.202 (
talk) 16:39, September 26, 2008
- Overturn the last speedy deletion. In order to meet the speedy criteria the article must 'exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'. I personally cannot see how the last version of the article does this. (It also makes an assertion of importance so would not fall under A7 criteria).
Davewild (
talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for the overturn vote. I have added these two links to show that I have more credible sources and that the company is very notable. One if from Yahoo Finance who picked up on the company's new product, and one is a web session for Macenterprise.org, an organization dedicated to how the Mac is being used in the enterprise:
biz.yahoo.com,
macenterprise.org
There are so many more new and credible blogs by experts in the field, but I wanted to focus on non blog references. It should be noted though that these blog entries by devoted bloggers and experts show that the company has a great deal of significance in the IT community and deserves a wiki article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MacJarvis (
talk •
contribs) 18:04, September 26, 2008
- Overturn the most recent speedy deletion per Davewild (endorse all previous ones).
Stifle (
talk) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and let it be discussed at afd. This is not the place. The intrinsic merits of the product however, are not really that relevant--just the degree to which it is regardedas notable by third parties, in material that is independent, and not based upon press releases.
DGG (
talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Should I move it somewhere? Thank you for your support editors. I would say that the merits of the product are pretty relevant. Schools and businesses are moving their IT infrastructure to something called "Access Virtualization" (I am studying this in college right now). Access virtualization allows users to virtualize a desktop experience while the actual computing takes place at a central server. Many companies (VM Ware, Parallels) use access virtualization, but Aqua Connect doe s something different...they use a terminal server while the other companies use virtualization. We will see this technology implemented more and more as the push to "go green" increase in business. I know this source is a blog, but it is from ZDNet and by Dan Kusnetzky who is regarded as an expert in the virtualization field, he explains why the company and their technology is of merit:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=525. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MacJarvis (
talk •
contribs) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- You would be wrong to say that the merits are relevant, however. Wikipedia depends on using reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. You may have the best foobritzen in the world, but we can't just take your word on it, and we don't take the word of any Wikipedia editor on it.--
Prosfilaes (
talk) 19:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Let me see now, re-created several times, always by
WP:SPAs, all versions speedied, gradually adding things to try and avoid the spedy criteria without fixing the fact that it's obvious advertorial. I say endorse and be done with it, we are being spammed and our good faith is being abused.
Guy (
Help!) 19:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse as deleting admin. My decision that it meets the definition of blatant advertisement is a sound one: it's been recreated and speedied multiple times by various admins under this criteria, and it's clearly being written by some with a
single purpose (to promote an non-notable IT firm) on Wikipedia. Not one person has given any significant evidence to suggest that this is not a mere advertisement, and it thus clearly meets the speedy criterion for which it was deleted.
Steven Walling
(talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I had to look this up, but my account is not a single purpose account. I'm just new to Wiki. My first article was on a Social Distortion logo. This was my second. Reason for the article is because it came up in my studies in my thesis. I've been studying IT uses in virtualization. Almost everything that I have studied, (VM Ware, Citrix, terminal servers, Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol) have come up in Wikipedia. I've always used Wiki as the beginning of my research throughout school. It offers a great place to start and to begin to understand terms or entities that you may not be familiar with. I thought it was interesting that this company and their pioneering software didn't come up in Wiki, and therefore thought it necessary to add them. I've been mirroring other wiki sites for companies that do similar thing such as VM Ware and Citrix, and based my original build off of those entries. My original build was much less "advertising" then those entries. I think the VM Ware one is great, it tells what the company does, why they are important, and why the software is good for business. My entry was far less of an "advertisement" then that...i even disregarded links to the company's own website to make it even less biased. Take the time to really look at it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MacJarvis (
talk •
contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and discuss at AfD. There appears to be a legitimate, yet-unsuccessful effort to create an article that meets Wikipedia's article standards. I think discussing the matter at AfD will help move this from a problem topic to one that can be improved on. --
Suntag
☼ 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Would moving it to AfD be something that I do, or does a Wiki editor do it. I looked at the AfD information page, and found it a little confusing. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MacJarvis (
talk •
contribs) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- An uninvolved admin will do this after a minimum of five days from the nomination date. Don't forget to
sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Stifle (
talk) 08:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- In the mean time, you should try to put together a list of reliable sources that are independent of (have no connection to) Aqua Connect. Websites and blogs won't help at AfD. Also, Aqua Connect's important actions are not so relevant. What matters is whether there is enought reliable source material to develop an article. Wikipedia calls this "
Wikipedia notability" and it means "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In other words, it is the text significant coverage that makes them Wikipedia notable, not Aqua Connect actions. Independent, significant coverage is your ticket into Wikipedia and that is what you should focus on. Also, please read over
WP:AGF. If taken to heart, it may help you avoid posting assumed negative observations about others. Thanks. --
Suntag
☼ 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn The article makes a credible claim of notability. Issues of possible promotional wording or puffery should be addressed through editing, not speedy deletion.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
|