Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (4th nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

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]

  • Delete -- Back to basics: What makes the company or its product NextOS remarkable and deserving of an encyclopedia article? Nothing that I can see. Rhadow (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has already been deleted three times over the past two years. There has been little to no change in circumstances, so there is no need to keep the article. GR (Contact me) (See my edits) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Seeing as this is the fourth attempt to revive the article, would it be worthwhile salting the article if the AFD passes for deletion? GR (Contact me) (See my edits) 13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. We're having these AfD discussions because its because of how the English Wikipedia defines notability. As mentioned in my vote, the German Wikipedia defines it based upon turnover, or employee size, or publicly traded, etc. The rational is that large companies should be on Wikipedia because investors, potential employees, etc would be interested in learning about the company. Like, the company says its been expanding and has tons of job opening. Interviewees might be interested in learning about the company from a NPOV source. So, yeah, there is a valid reason for having a large company on Wikipedia. Salting the namespace would be more of a hinderance than help. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: duffbeerforme has made some good arguments about the sourcing on the article talk page, and I will admit that I did not look at the article as closely as I probably should have when reviewing it. While the ice bucket challenge stuff is worthless trivia, reliable sources still exist for the company, such as this one (and I see nothing even suggesting that this is a promotional article). I found another source that cites this company being the fastest-growing tech company in Arizona according to "Deloitte's Technology Fast 500 list."
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]
  • Strong Keep There are several major sources in the article that provide an in-depth analysis of Nextiva, from large publications such as Forbes [1], Entrepreneur [2], Inc. [3], and the Phoenix Business Journal [4]. The nominator has set up a straw man of the article by claiming that the majority of the sources in the article discuss the ice bucket challenge when only one source does so. On the contrary, most of them provide detailed coverage of Nextiva, such as this one by Huffpost [5] and this one by The Arizona Republic [6]. I also don't see any evidence of promotionalism here but an article that was written professionally by Wikipedia editor Renzoy16. Was that editor paid to do the job? Yes. But, did he follow Wikipedia's terms of use and appropriately disclose? Yes. People shouldn't be punished when they follow the rules, especially when the article meets Wikipedia's core policies that require reliable sources and notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bmbaker88 has set up a straw man by claiming that I wrote something that I clearly did not. Let's look at the sources they claim are good. Forbes, that is from a "contributor", not staff, it's not subject to the same editorial control, not a reliable source, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.". Entrepreneur, that is from a "contributor", not staff, it's not subject to the same editorial control, not a reliable source, see also the quote from her article "One of my favorite clients, Nextiva," so also not independent. Inc. "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com", not a reliable source. Phoenix Business Journal, barely mentions Nextiva, does not provide an in-depth analysis of Nextiva as claimed above. Huffpost, that is from the blog section, not staff, it's not subject to the same editorial control, not a reliable source, lacks any detailed coverage about Nextiva as was claimed above. The Arizona Republic, see comments by DGG below on the problem with such local business journals and see also WP:AUD. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:29, 6 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]
  • Delete It's three times as long as before, and it's even worse. That the contributor included quotes from each reference (usually a promotional technique) is in this case quite convenient, because it makes it easy to see how useless they all are. Many are press releases--often, just local press releases--as can be seen from the way they read almost the same way (for example, 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 , 24, 26, 27, 29 ); many of the others are mere mentions. (7, 14, 28 ) Aa few of them manage to be both at the same time, where apparently the company press office made sure they'd be included in laudatory terms an article about something else. (for example, 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 20, 25 , 30 ,31 . There is not a single substantial one from a reliable source for notability-- Entrepreneur and Inc apparently no longer have any editorial standards and write about whatever company they can be persuaded to write about, in the same language the company suggest. Huffington Post is well-known for letting its contributors write what the want--it's the main way they differentiate themselves from other publications. Local business journals are never a RS, especially for local companies--the reason for their existence is to print press releases. Judging by these references, Nextiva is extremely good at marketing itself with press releases; they have no need to do it here also . DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The news source AZCentral is a division of the USA Today Network and USA Today is a reliable news organization (Wikipedia's article on USA Today has a long list of awards that USA Today has won). The AZCentral news article Telecommunications company Nextiva is growing rapidly is a respectable size article on Nextiva and is not merely a blurb about the company. The AZCentral article is written by the business reporter Ryan Randazzo. The Nextiva article indicates: "Six years after its creation, Nextiva had approximately one hundred and twenty workers. As such, Nextiva's growth rate, according to Deloitte, was estimated to be 1548%. Later in 2017, Nextiva was placed on the Deloitte 500 list, with a revenue of $125 million USD." Tech is a hugely important component of modern economies and a big driver of economic growth and it has been for some time (And there is no indication that tech is going to stop being a hugely important. For example, estimates that artificial intelligence could double the annual economic growth rate in various developed economies are not unreasonable). And in our global economy, the tech area of internet communications is a very important area. So to say that a fast growing tech company in an important tech sector dealing with the global economy/communications is't notable is not a plausible position. As far as the articles in Forbes , Entrepreneur, Inc. Huffpost made by contributors, these media giants have made substantial investments in their publications. They are not going to allow shoddy material fill up their publications and ruin their reputations. Readers who read poor quality material in their publications would often not return. And the type of readers who read Forbes/Inc. are not unintelligent people. They tend to be astute business people. So the summary dismissal of the Forbes/Inc. material is not warranted. And when I looked at various sources of the 31 footnotes, I did not find any information that would lead me to believe it was unreliable/untrue. The company is also a socially responsible company that gives back to its community by donating to charities. The USA/world needs fast growing companies that provide jobs and do their part in supporting the social safety net. Wikipedians needn't get in the way of these companies in terms of them having Wikipedia articles. Knox490 (talk) 03:44, 6 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]
  • Comment -- The argument appears to be about the veracity of the sources, not the underlying importance of the topic, an unremarkable software company selling VoIP software. Yes it is growing. Yes, the company impressed the local reporter. I am not convinced by the paper's ownership by Gannett (USA Today). Placement of execs in the lede is gratuitous. Neither is relevant to the notability of the company. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 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]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG per the reliable sources provided on the article. No doubt about USA Today, ABC and more, they are reliable sources. There are nearly 60 articles of VoIP companies of the US. It doesn't seem that we should be deleting article based on promotion, instead the article can be trimmed if it is needed. On one of the previous AFD[8] some good arguments had been made and now the company is much more notable. Capitals00 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK Let's look at what those two sources you mention actually say about Nextiva. USA Today, nothing at all. The local ABC affiliate, Nextiva is a local Scottsdale based company and they founded a charity org. That's it. Trivial coverage in a local interest puff piece, essentially free advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:50, 7 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]
  • Keep ABC and CNBC have provided in-depth coverage of Nextiva, not to mention leading newspapers like the Chicago Tribune. Nextiva has over 1,250,000 Google Hits. For those who have not realized this, there are a lot more sources about Nextiva than are in the article. Even if some users have an issue with the way the article is written now, more sources can be added to the article just by using a search engine and finding them. Examples of sources that can be added include this Forbes article [9] although as one can see from the Google results, there are many more reliable sources, like this one that mentions Nextiva alongside Steve Wozniak of Apple Inc. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still chasing that paycheck, still showing how you are not here to build an encyclopedia, Still pumping out flat out lies about sources. Those ABC15 and CNBC articles simply do not provide "in-depth coverage of Nextiva" and any !vote that claims they do should be totally discounted. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:58, 7 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]
  • Comment -- I untangled the Gordian knot of this article the best I could. It's a private company. Revenue numbers are tossed out like Mardi Gras beads, so I'm not sure I put much stock in them. The author is the most aggressive at using quotes that I have seen. The article, if kept, is a candidate to move all the references to the bottom and use the abbreviated citation form. The company is still not very impressive to me. YMMV Rhadow (talk) 17:36, 6 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]
  • Comment The key question isn't demonstrating that the references are inadequate --which they certainly are -- the last one suggested here was as the suggestion admits, just a mention--but whether we want to encourage promotionalism by rewriting it. In the past, I sometimes suggested it myself. I do longer do. NOT ADVERTISING is a basic policy of WP, founded on the pillar NPOV. the details fo referencing are just qualigying words in a guideline. Tis sort of conflict is always resolved in favor of the policy. Th epolicy does suggest rewriting if the promotional material is incidental, but here, its the main part of the article and the reason for its existence. The only real control we have over people doing that is to remove the articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given there's still the same concerns as last time: Promotional information and sources, which is policy to delete by that alone, and an accessible search here shows:
  • 1, 3-5, 15-18 are all announcements
  • 2 and 10-13 is a labeled press release
  • 6 is an Indiscriminate local award only significant for a local marketing aspect
  • 7 is the company self-quoting
  • 8 is a local-interest story in a local column
  • 9 is a general business overview and not any genuine substance
  • 14 is a business trade publisher, therefore not independent of the business's goals

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]

  • Delete - purely promotional article which does not pass WP:GNG, as per the above analyses. No sense re-hashing them. Is there something beyond "salting", since that happened last time and clearly didn't work. Onel5969 TT me 00:08, 8 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]

  • Delete -- sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and are mostly WP:SPIP. $125M for a tech company is not remarkable, and is actually pretty low to assume notability in the absense of strong sources. Just a private company going about its business; Wikipedia is not a directory. Salt as well due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an administrator on Punjabi Wikipedia, Nextiva would easily meet the threshold for inclusion there. It surprises me that a group of editors wishes to delete the article when world class newspapers like the Chicago Tribune provide detailed coverage on both Nextiva and its founder Tomas Gorny [10]. In the article on English Wikipedia, I see significant coverage coming from Inc. too. While the article could be slightly trimmed, deleting it altogether is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 03:40, 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]
  • Keep with option to merge  It is obvious that this is not a hoax, and that the sources in the article minus Forbes and Huffpost the eight blogs meet WP:GNG.  I'd be fine with a merge of the topic to a list of prominent Phoenix or Scottsdale businesses, as that would stuff the hyped and overwrought "notability" argument, and we could focus on what reliable material is needed in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is bureaucracy at its finest. I agree with User:Satpal_Dandiwal, the article does meet notability requirements. Satpal_Dandiwal says that it meets the notability requirements in Punjabi, I'm saying it meets the notability requirements in English as well as German.
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]
  • Delete Personally I don't care how the other language Wikipedias define notability. This is the English language version. Applying our criteria we do not have two intellectually independent references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There's certainly evidence that this company has a functioning marketing department though. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 16:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This one is associated with Tomas Gorny - a topic that I still feel also meets notability guidelines but that's a different story. As far as promotion, it can easily be removed from the Wikipedia page. There are references from articles such as regional press from Arizona, a mixture of publications on the national level, and the books mentioned above by editor Hyperblick. There are also reviews of its products from reliable sources which include this from Business News Daily and this from PC Mag (Note that BND recommends the service while PC Mag does not). If we don't want articles like this, we need to strengthen our guidelines on notability. As for now, I feel this meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:28, 11 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]
  • Delete. The best source is an interview, and we go downhill from here. WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been in this discussion about this subject before. These sources this and this are definitely WP:RS. Even though borderline this passes the WP:GNG test. The article has been recreated twice via Drafts and it was approved by different AFC reviewers but one thing that stands out is it has been having the same AFD nominator 3 times even though mot consecutively. Referring to link 1 and link 2. WP:INTERVIEW states; An independent interviewer represents the __world at large__ giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. and it also states; The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported. While I think it is in order to write off what other language encyclopedia consider as matter of policy on inclusion of subjects yet all of them are working to consolidate information about notable subjects in the quest to create the sum of all human knowledge. Not unless sum of all human knowledge is supreme over all in some language(s). If anything they span off from English Wikipedia and the policies their might be better in a bid to improve coverage as DGG stated above. I have also seen an editor trash the revenue per year because this is a tech company – granted that might be the case but some companies say UBER (Taxi) had an article here when it could only raise USD 1.25M of seed capital while it was more of a unicorn and not really having any revenues. Not really citing WP:OTHER but just like law precedence is equally important when building solid foundations. KagunduTalk To Me 12:05, 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)
  • Delete as a good example of this is what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination) which then had Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 19 and then also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nextiva, which also had 4 nominations, and that there is a good example at how the company is only interested and intent on advertising itself, and that should always be our number one priority here: Removing it and asking questions if possible later. From our pillar policy, Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia and that's the one important disclosure anyone from the company needs to know. Another similar case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (2nd nomination) which also had Keep votes but the opposing side clearly showed this was the last thing we ever needed to accept, therefore those conditions still apply here. In fact, this article's beginnings are in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH, which as a paid-activity organization that mass-produced promotion with sockpuppets. Regardless if this is an improved article, it's clear that the foundation here has always been to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. That we would suggest in keeping promotionalism simply because someone else is offering to pitch in and add a few changes, is against the goals of why Wikipedia began (as a promotion-free and open encyclopedia); especially because we're clearly being misled on why the article is genuinely keep-able, one of the sources previously offered earlier, for example, was from a local TV affiliate station, not the corporate news network itself, therefore it showed it was only local coverage, not independent coverage and this, unlike what's currently being suggested on what WP:Notability means, says independent coverage is what's needed. What the Keep votes essentially insinuate is that we should keep it, despite the promotionalism and Terms of Use violations, because it's interesting or important. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Delete Agree there are not sufficient in-depth independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. MB 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company is on the Deloitte 500 list, a fact that clearly establishes the notability of Nextiva. Although some aspects of the article can certainly be rewritten, it should be kept on the project in light of passing WP:NCORP. PFAStudent (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok...about the "Deloitte 500" statements...this is what is factual/verifiable:
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nextiva_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1143883734"