Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidFire (2nd nomination)

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. There doesn't seem to be a solid consensus here for deletion , however if one wish proceed with merge or redirect, feel free to continue the discussion on the talk page so a consensus to merge or redirect can be gauged. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SolidFire (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)

Delete and Salt, advertising article, not only deleted once before at AfD, but in fact started last year by an advertising-only account who pseudo-contributed as an "advertising removal" account but apparently took the time to not only start this advertising article again but also review and accept another user's own advertisement; I'll note all of the sources listed here are as expected, PR and republished, wherever published since that's exactly what the contents are, only focusing with the company's own words and thoughts of advertising itself, something my own searches are also finding....from their own published websites, so it's not even actual efforts of republishing if they are still only hosted at the company website. The user's own efforts alone including to seemingly make this article "substantial" with simple PR sources and mentions show enough concerns to question how elaborate this advertising campaign was. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and more coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Concerns about tone in the article can be addressed by copy editing it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into NetApp. This company came and went in five years, so will not become more notable. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I considered merge but this SolidFire is in fact mentioned there in a sufficient form and this can therefore be deleted since it's simply advertising. Also, as for the listed sources, they are all literally advertising wherever published, take the "SolidFire breaths life!" caption for one, everything is literally simply advertising; for example, the WallStreetJournal is not only from their business contributor blog, but it's simply advertising how they gained money for their own business, the ComputerWeekly is essentially still only advertising and is also focused with its connections to NetApp. Then take the ZDNet (also has been established as a questionable source): "SolidFire offers flexible purchasing model for data center storage!".

The NetworkWorld also only advertises what information there to advertise the company and then TheRegister is literally an interview with the CEO advertising his company. Therefore we cannot honestly call any of this actual substance, independence or actual meaning, if it's still in fact advertising, whatever and wherever it was published, because that's also what churnalism means and is what's still happening. Once we start making excuses of a news source publishing PR therefore making it acceptable, we are still accepting advertisements overall.

So you see the pattern of all of this, like with all other advertisements here at AfD, in that it all only advertises the company itself and also naturally includes information only the company itself would know such as literally showing its own finance numbers or business plans & thoughts. Also, therefore, we cannot "Simply fix the advertising" if the advertising consists of the entire article, information and sources included.SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have checked the proposed target first. OK, sure, although NetApp could be beefed up a bit too. W Nowicki (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough sources in the article that clearly meet necessary criteria and denote notability. Whether redirecting makes more sense from an information point of view is a different question. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not answering or satisfying how the article has been restarted each time as blatant advertising, therefore the fact the listed sources are then clear published and republished advertising information by the company itself, there's no compromises about that unless we want to damn ourselves as an advertising webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the purpose of AfD. Here, we look to see if an article topic is notable enough for its own article. This is. Any other tangental problems you have with the article or the authors are not for here. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There exists some reliable sources in the article and Northamerica1000 has pointed out multiple reliable sources with content that is clearly more than just regurgitated primary sources. With multiple RS, the topic has been shown to be notable per WP:GNG. Any promotional or non-neutrality issues can be better solved through editing, not deletion. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing though, sources #1, 3, 4,6, 8 and 9 are all either publications known for publishing and republishing company-authored advertising, and this is clear since the articles always contained something of "The company supplied this information today", "The company wants to say to its clients today here", "This information comes from the company's website today", etc. All these sources have clearly stated such blatancy especially when such articles noticeably then also contain "The company's CEO said today", "The company's spokesman gave this statement here today", etc. None of that was independent news nor was it actual news at all, since it was simply company-published words.

As it is, especially websites such as Forbes have notoriously become PR webhost motivators, since the "journalists" will be hired freelance PR journalists, not actual staff journalists, therefore emphasizing the natural risks of accepting such blatancy, simply because the Forbes website wants to both include the company's abilities in its self-advertising and then (2) get extra money from both the hosted advertising and the company's own payments, and (3) Forbes never then has to pay any full-time staff since they were all either company employees or hired freelance employees.

There the contents above are not company-univolved, significant or substantial and it literally only took me a few minutes to confirm in the listed links above (the 2 other comments above, "Merge" and "Redirect" both acknowledge this is not independently convincing either), therefore we shouldn't willingly mistake it as such "news". Thus, simply saying "it's a news source" is not applying in fact the contents themselves are still eternally damned as company advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – We'd be damned as an encyclopedia if articles with very minor promotional tone are blanket deleted instead of simply copy edited to address such concerns. The only promotional content, which is very minor, is in the History section concerning the company's founder, which can easily be trimmed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would need a rewrite to make it comply with WP:PROMO. Copyedit it all you wish but I can tell you it won't make much of a difference. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Just promotional blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - it's hard to expect to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if a company that is worth USD$870 million is not considered notable. I'll take a shot and see what I can do. It's also unfortunate that the AfD process causes reference stuffing to demonstrate notability. One source should usually be enough to substantiate each statement. This skeleton has almost zero puffery now as I can see. Getting into Gartner's Magic Quadrant is the gold standard of recognition for tech companies.Timtempleton (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article, tightened up the sources, corrected some incorrect info and flushed out the history.Timtempleton (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote against merge - SolidFire is no longer independent, and Netapp apparently now markets the products as Netapp SolidFire, so the SolidFire article will no longer need to be updated, but can stay as a historical archive. Merging the info such as the history into the Netapp article unnecessarily complicates that article. In my experience most acquired and discontinued tech companies keep their articles. MCI Communications, Covad, ADC Telecommunications, etc.Timtempleton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer - Compare how the article has looked after all this time, from the AfD start, to after and to finally now, the only consistency that has stayed is the same exact PR advertising that is known for such articles, which is literally only focusing with what the company wants to advertise about themselves, and this shows since the fact the sources all repeat this too.

Therefore it's not something that we would keep in considerations for WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, which are both policy, and thus WP:BASIC and WP:GNG be damned, because it would mean we are confirming we're not a business listing and company webhost, and the history as it is shows this was only ever planned as an advertisement, therefore not considering that, is only damaging enough and, worse, if we take no actions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't seem to be press releases - can you point out specific instances which can easily be removed?Timtempleton (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some more of the content into NetApp. Its our usual practice to keep the material under the name of the current company unless the earlier company was famous, or more important. But the article on that company needs some attention as well. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted against a merge - it seems there's too much info to make a merge work without making Netapp's article too clunky. How would you do it? It looks like Netapp is selling a product called Solidfire [10] (which should probably be added to the Netapp article product section) but that the company SolidFire is no more.Timtempleton (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Topic is wp:notable, see sources found by NorthAmerica1000.  Claims of advertising saturating the multiple reliable sources, the article content, and placed there by agents of the company is lacking a foundation.  No need to discuss merge here, and such a result is not binding even then.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has specifically been analysis of these sources and they show nothing but republished and reformatted PR advertising, especially with the fact everything is consistent with what their own website press releases say about it, hence certainly not independent if it's simply republished from company website PR. WP:N means nothing when policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, both of which are non-negotiable. When we no longer consider policies such as this, we're damned. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your passion for protecting Wikipedia from blatant promotionalism, but that's all gone now. An $870 million dollar acquisition is inherently notable, regardless of anyone's opinion of the value of the news sources.Timtempleton (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to NetApp; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator' - If needed, I am in fact willing for a Redirect as long as we can seal this article's fate from becoming advertising again. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article is undoubtedly written in WP:NPOV. We shouldn't delete an article because it was written as an advertising vehicle; after all, if the subject is notable, then Wikipedia should have an article for it. Just because it was created by an advertising editor does not make this less notable, and in fact, I haven't found any instances of advertising. Also, previous AfD was by no means conclusive of this form of the article. Even on cursory glance, this AfD is a lot more in depth than its first one. Icebob99 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually policy including WP:NOT explicitly states advertising can be removed on sight, regardless of anything, and even the CSD applies and allows this; therefore because everything has shown above this was in fact only started for advertising, it's enough, regardless of anything else that would "perhaps suggest" otherwise. The fact it was even then started by an advertising account emphasizes this, and that's not something we should allow. An account that was only ever willing to focus with adding advertising for companies in hence an advertising account, and WP:DUCK would apply in this.

As I said above, I'm willing for the article relink to the parent instead, but there's enough Delete and merge consensus to show this is simply not convincing as its own article. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable (nor should we make it so), compared to guidelines WP:BASIC, WP:CORP and WP:GNG which in fact are. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading your comments correctly, you're saying that even if a subject is notable, if the article was started by someone with a conflict of interest and/or it's too advertorial in tone, instead of fixing it, it should be deleted? What if the editor simply didn't know the site guidelines, assuming good faith? No consensus usually means keep, but also keep this on your watch list.Timtempleton (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOT ADVERTISING is basic policy, and is more important than questions of notability. If something is really notable, a person without NPOV will write an article. If anyone thinks it should be kept, they should first rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation for what defines "really notable" here is the premise that there are people "with NPOV" and "without NPOV".  Wikipedia does not identify such categories.  It is an elitist argument that editors can be labeled and divided, and that notability is defined by the contributions of right-thinking editors.  See WP:BATTLEGROUND. 

I also get the sense of a deeper idea here that policies and guidelines don't apply to the contributions of either side of this labeling.

This foundation is then used to state a fallacious argument, as follows.  To clarify the fallacy it helps to redefine "a person with NPOV" and "a person without NPOV" as "a person".  The fallacy then falls out as either the statement, "if something is really notable, a person will write an article" or "if something is really notable, a person will write an NPOV article".  But this is a fallacy because if something is "really notable", a person may or may not write an article.  Or this is a fallacy because if something is "really notable", a person may or may not write an NPOV article.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SolidFire has received significant coverage in reliable sources from those provided by Northamerica1000 so meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I oppose a merge because it would be undue weight to move all the material in SolidFire to NetApp and encyclopedic material would be lost if very little material were merged. I read the article and consider it largely to be neutrally written, so WP:NOTADVERTISING is not applicable. Cunard (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to NetApp per WP:NOPAGE. Literally every single source I saw mentioned it as a part of NetApp. We don't create articles for every small subsidiary unless the subsidiary can show notability independent of the parent company. That is not happening here. Accordingly, I suggest a redirect with history preserved. If someone wants to add information, they can pull it out from the history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2016 (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.