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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Enterprise Switch Manager (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)

Disputed prod, questionable notability, written like an advertisement Nouniquenames 15:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Puff Piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like so many other articles about software product, this just exists. It is not notable in any way beyond that. §FreeRangeFrog 22:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt any new article starting with "Avaya". Note:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya FAST Stacking
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya VPN Router
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya ERS 2500
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Unified Communications Management (kept, with a specific note about WP:SOC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avaya patents (merge to Avaya)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Energy Saver
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Professional Credential Program
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Auto Unit Replacement (redirect to Avaya)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Secure Router 2330
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya ERS-4500 Systems (merge to Avaya)

There are a couple more that were kept but I can't help but strongly suspect that someone isn't getting the message that WP is not for WP:PROMO. Given the history, I think an administrator should have to be convinced before another of these articles can be created. It's a massive waste of editor time. Stalwart111 03:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional delete !vote, all of the above, per Stalwart111, there is no reason for all of these articles, they are puff pieces and WP:EXISTS that promote products from a company that are not notable on their own. §FreeRangeFrog 19:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify FRF, all of the above in the list I provided have been deleted. I listed them as an indication of the amount of time the WP community has spent reviewing and deleting obvious promo-spam. By my count, there are 4 existing Avaya-related articles currently at AFD. Stalwart111 22:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And one of those four actually covers two articles. --Nouniquenames 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ALL and Salt This is straight spam at this point, in violation of too many policies to name. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep object to the wholesale removal of articles that were under the umbrella of the Nortel deleted wiki-project Ottawahitech (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, your objection and your "vote" but it's worth pointing out that those above and the four others discussed have not be mass-or-group-nominated, nor are they being dealt with as a group. My point was that there had been a large number to date and that something should be done to place tighter controls on new ones. But existing ones must still be dealt with on their merits - they must go through WP:AFD and be subject to WP:CONSENSUS. If they are notable then they should stay. Stalwart111 13:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stalwart111, thanks for allowing me to participate. I will post a long response on the talk page as soon as I get the time Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you don't need my permission to participate but I would welcome any additional discussion here, there or anywhere else. As would others, I imagine. Stalwart111 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Stalwart111, I am truly glad to find out that you are interested in finding out more. Not so sure about other participants some of whose contribution history clearly demonsrrates that they have spent less than two minutes looking at the evidence and entering a Delete-vote, which is disheartening to me since I spent countless hours trying to explain why a Keep-vote makes more sense.

Anyway, I have just posted an long explanation of why I object to the wholesale removal of these articles. I hope editors get a chance to read it before casting more Delete-votes. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have left some comments there, though I fear they do not really change anything with regard to this article or the history of the others I listed above. But it's worth taking into account that some of the more recent contributions in this field seem substantially more "good faith" than has historically been the case. Stalwart111 23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, objecting without giving a reason does not assist in AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PRODUCT. The community has established a relatively high bar for articles about products, and this one clearly misses. There may be enough information about this particular product to rate a sentence in the Avaya article, but not enough coverage is warranted to make a merge worthwhile. This relatively simple product name is a plausible search term and should be redirected to Avaya after deletion. Incidentally, these articles have (so far at least) been judged individually, so "wholesale deletion" is not an accurate term. However, bundling of deletions is absolutely permitted by process and would not, in itself, be a strong keep argument. VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

** @VQuakr, several questions/points if I may:

1. In regards to bundling, I myself, and I am sure other Keepers (where are they btw), would have preferred to have all these articles proposed for deletion in one well-advertised chunk, instead of spread over different dates and different deletion methods. Actually I believe the two nominators involved felt that this was the only way of getting around a bunch of colluding of wiki-spammers-promoters who use every trick in the book to defeat their justified deletion efforts. So yes, I still believe that these are wholesale deletions carried out by only two nominators, User:Alan Liefting (who is currently unable to participate here until Nov 28 - so in fairness the closings should be held up IMHO) and user: Nouniquenames, both of whom have been instrumerntal in the deletion of wp:WikiProject Nortel which housed, before it was deleted, all articles related to Nortel). Between them those two editors have nominated at least 15 Nortel related articles for deletion, some (if not all) of them more than once. Both nominators have openly stated that they believe the editors involved in the creation of these articles are promoters, spammers, sock-puppets, SPAs or meatpuppets (whatever those derogatory names mean). They have openly stated their belief that these articles are promotional only – and this is the basis on which these nominations have been presented.

Procedurally, the availability of an individual to participate in an AfD or other discussion is not usually considered in the duration such a discussion is held open. A deletion discussion is the wrong forum for addressing the rest of your concerns, since we should be looking at the content and the subject matter. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was so instrumental that I !voted. The same could be said of four other participants, not counting the nominator. I choose not to bundle so that individual articles can be scrutinized and nothing worth keeping is deleted simply because it is overlooked. --Nouniquenames 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. In your Delete-vote you state quite a different rationale for deletion that no one else in this discussion has articulated before. I believe the closing admin should allow more time for the all the Keepers( did I already ask where they all are?) to find a rebuttal to this brand new rationale.

AfD's are consensus-based, not a debate or a vote. The core of my reasoning is notability-based, which was mentioned in the AfD nomination. Even if it were not mentioned, I am aware of no precedent for your request for time to prepare a response. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. This article started it’s life under a compleletely different name (Enterprise Switch Manager See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avaya_Enterprise_Switch_Manager&oldid=185132936) which according to its 2008 version is a Nortel protocol, not an Avaya product. Yes the history of the article is very confusing, but it illustrates very clearly a point I have been attempting to make almost since the day I joined Wikipedia: Articles should not be moved to a new company name simply because a company is taken over by a different company.

For reference, this is the diff link to the move. I do not understand how this is relevant to whether the subject is notable. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. wp:product says this: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article" yet you are voting Delete not Merge?

Yes, I explained why in my !vote above. In short, it will be less work to write a sentence about the product in Avaya than to merge the articles and then clean up the overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. You say that this article clearly misses the bar for articles about products, but I cannot see why you think that. This is what I read under wp:product: "If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article" Ottawahitech (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to #4. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or look at the rest of the line you partially quoted: If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article or propose it for deletion. --Nouniquenames 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The management software that this AfD is about is not itself notable, coverage is limited to reference and tutorial books. I have no evaluated the other related AfDs, so this comment is only for this particular article. Gigs (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There has been a number of editors creating Avaya related articles creating leading to a situation where the company is given undue prominence in Wikipedia. IMHO, this is a case where WP:OTHERSTUFF is a valid deletion argument - ther is no otherstuff about such a wide range of products from equivalent companies giving Avaya an undue commercial advantage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alan_Liefting, so why not simply revert all changes, including the wiki-move from Nortel to Avaya, that took place after Nortel went belly up in all the articles that have been separately proposed for deletion, instead of deleting all this historic stuff from Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient cited coverage to demonstrate notability, and given the WP:PROMO issues I'm not inclined to attempt rescue. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 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.