Nextiva ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

My name is Mike and I am an employee of Nextiva, a page that was recently deleted on Wikipedia. I previously brought this request back in March and it was endorsed as deletion. [1] I appreciate everyone who looked at the request and based on the comments I created a draft for everyone to review. You can find it in my sandbox. In the previous request, there was no draft article to review, nor did I supply an expansive list of references to review. In addition to the references available prior to March, there are additional in-depth references that have made the press between then and now.

Again, I am familiar with conflict of interest guidelines and have offered to assist my company with this article. Everyone here is also now fully aware of guidelines on conflict of interest and promotion. I feel that the company is notable according to Wikipedia general notability guidelines ( WP:GNG). The draft that I created is not promotional and gives some of the basic facts about the company which are supported by reliable sources.

The most important thing to point out here is that I now have a draft to review (as mentioned and recommended in the last review request by those providing their opinion), and there are additional references that have made the news since the last discussion (some included below and some can be found at this link) Custom Google search for records since May 2016

The last discussion contained quite a bit of information and would ask that those reading this would look at that discussion as well. [2]

I put together a list of additional articles that I did not use in the draft. I did not qualify any of these as meeting Wikipedia guidelines as I did not use them for the draft. By this I mean I did not evaluate them individually as I didn't need them for the draft I created. I found them with a simple Google search and wanted to list them here for quick reference if needed. This is only a sampling of articles found as there are many more that can be seen with a Google search.

There are also two great articles by Carol Roth here and here. The issue with these is that she is a contributor to the Nextiva blog which could be considered a conflict of interest and as such I did not use them in the draft. However, the company blog has many contributors such as Mike Michalowicz. She is a contributor for Entrepreneur, The New York Times, and the Huffington Post and do not feel that what she wrote about Nextiva is biased, but I left it out all the same to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Additional references about the company

• Fox News – Phone Analytics Are Changing the Future of Marketing

The analytic tools was also covered by other publications including Phoenix Business Journal.

• Phoenix Business Journal - How Nextiva plans to reinvent businesses' phone systems
• Inc. - What Cloud Computing Can Show Companies About Customer Service
• Forbes - Inspiring Tips from Thomas Gorny About Marketing Through Leadership
• The Arizona Republic - Arizona jobs are back, but pay is down
• Huffington Post - The Millennials Dream: Gamify Your Business
• Phoenix Business Journal - Top of the Phoenix Lists: Telephone Companies
• Complete list of articles in the Phoenix Business Journal
• Business News Daily - Nextiva Review: Best Business Phone System for Call Centers
• Huffington Post - Destination American Dream: Technology Innovator Tomas Gorny Shares His Story
• PC Mag - Comparison of Nextiva and Vonage MikeBVIse ( talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• I've read the draft and I think that's the kind of brief, neutral and factual article that would be appropriate for Wikipedia. The Forbes and Huffington Post content is written by volunteers who don't receive a lot of editorial control, and are not understood as highly reliable on Wikipedia; and Inc.com have a disclaimer that says "Certain areas of the Inc.com Web site contain information supplied by visitors and others. Inc.com is not responsible for..." and this rules them out as a reliable source. But PC magazine and Fox News are perfectly acceptable sources for an article about a technology corporation, and the rules say you only need two. I'm happy for that content to be moved into mainspace. This is not an "overturn" outcome, so the convention here is to say restore.— S Marshall T/ C 07:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  The fox source isn't all it seems. It says at it's top it's from entrepreneur.com and indeed here is the same article there [3]. Entrepreneur.com in it's terms of service states "The Website is a distributor of content supplied by other information content providers such as non-staff bloggers, commenters and content owned by other providers that is published with their permission on the Website. The Website is not responsible for the statements and opinions expressed by those content providers. Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such content lies solely with those content providers and is not guaranteed by EMI". The author contributes to various places on a very diverse range of topics, I can't see this as a reliable source. Also the PC magazine is rather false, it is a compare from the directory as DGG points out so isn't a genuine comparison they've decided to run, it's easy enough to construct your own, so here is PC Magazine comparing Nextiva against Kaspersky antivirus-- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 17:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• restore/move draft to mainspace draft seems fine, topic meets WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The draft has 5 references. I read the Inc.article you're using. I consider it PR. and note it was not written by their regular staff. The Chicago Tribune story isa bout another topic, and mentions the company as one example among several others. TechTarget is a mere mention. I consider no local paper acceptable for notability of a local company, and that's the other two references. {{U|S Marshall}, the PC magazine item is not an article. It's a comparison of two businesses listed in their directory, taken from the directory. And the Fox article is PR--read it--it's a straight advertorial, pretending to talk about a general topic, but managing to mention the company in some way as often as possible. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion pretty much per DGG, many sources but no real substance, local coverage, directory style information, passing mentions and articles which read as thinly veiled marketing. As above the fox source isn't it states it's from entrepreneur.com who take submissions and disown any fact checking, it's not a reliable source. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 18:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  I don't like this and I don't feel it's the correct call in view of the history. This is a user whose first draft was rejected, and rightly rejected, but the unpleasantness and histrionics at that first AfD were a disgrace and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. If I'd encountered that kind of ridiculous behaviour with my first draft I would not have become a volunteer here, but this user has risen above it and submitted a brief, tolerably neutrally worded, factual draft. Full disclosure of the COI and faultless conduct combined with an honest attempt to comply with Wikipedia's Byzantine reliable source requirements, and the result is something that if that was in the mainspace it would be somewhere in the top quartile of our company-related articles. Is nitpicking about sources really the correct reaction to this?— S Marshall T/ C 19:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  So you are saying we should patronise someone who you think has been treated badly in the past by giving them a pat on the head and accepting something substandard. Each to his own I guess. Your own comment only gives value to two sources, and it doesn't take nitpicking to show that they aren't reliable. The PC magazine source is not a source it's part of their directory of software with a comparison applied. The other from entrepreneur.com who essentially wash their hands of the articles being accurate etc. It is by an author who you can easily find by searching around covering an incredibly broad range of topic, there seems to reason to believe they are an expert in this particular field. They also submit to such sources as the Huffington Post, who you also quite rightly state as not being acceptable and this entrepreneur.com article is clearly of a similar ilk.-- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 19:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  I'm not suggesting a pat on the head, just the acceptance of a perfectly harmless article. Yes, okay, I could go through the sources with a fine tooth comb. The Chicago Tribune is cited in the draft. In reality their coverage is a passing mention, and this is the newspaper that famously misidentified the winner of a US presidential election... I could go on and on. But we have thousands of articles about corporations and I could spend my whole lifetime on others which are far worse where the COI author hasn't done nearly as much to work with us. The only reason for burrowing into this is because the user has chosen to follow the procedure correctly. I think it's a mistake to punish that behaviour because in the process of punishing it we're showing other, less good-faith users, some good reasons to sock.— S Marshall T/ C 20:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  Well I guess we'll have to agree to differ, the quality of the encycloaedia is related to the quality of the sources used, compromising on that is in my view not harmless. We aren't a directory of everyone and everything, the thinner the real content becomes the lower the overall value of the content. The idea that this is somehow punishing the author is misguided, I would look at the sources in the same light regardless of how disinterested they were in the subject. I rather assume the authors would like their work to stand because it's a good piece of work, not because other work is worse, or we are scared of somehow insulting their sensibilities by pointing our weaknesses. I'd still see it as rather patronising to assume the author won't be able to take any criticism of the quality and standards and use it to improve and build something better - to make it that good piece of work. I have seen time and time again DRV decide to let things which don't meet the standards and have no hope of meeting the standards go back to mainspace to be promptly either be heavily edited or put up for deletion, we do no one any favours by letting that happen, if anything we confuse and frustrate people more by having one process which apparently gives a thumbs up to then walking into another which smacks it down. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 18:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore/move Draft to Mainspace This draft meets WP:ORG Fairfax49 ( talk) 18:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• I see a lot of sources, some don't work, and the rest are a small range of promotion, some blatant, all reading as non-independent. However, it is uncomfortable that Vonage is allowed, and this is not. I would think that it would be better to have coverage of these service providers collectively, and not of individual companies. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Restore - The draft created about this organization is NPOV and meets WP:N. I think two or three reliable sources are enough to establish notability of such a subject. In this case I would pick Foxnews, Entrepreneur.com and Inc.com. If these sources had non-verifiable information or falsehoods, then thousands of articles would not have them as references across all Wikipedias. They would have been purged a long time ago or blacklisted for that matter. A simple search shows that articles running in the thousands use Foxnews, Entrepreneur.com and Inc.com. as reliable sources thus my point that this meets WP:N. Tushi Talk To Me 01:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

but Fox news just reprinted from entrpreneur.com , and, considering the content, its clearly a press release. Fox news is reliable for notability on some things; it depends on the actual content. Entrepreneu.com should not be used in WP to prove notability, though it can be reliable for some purposes. For Inc., you have to read the article. to tell. This one is not substantial coverage.

S Marshall, you consider this article harmless. I do not consider coi articles about people writing about hteir own companies a harmless--allowing this lets WP degenerate into advetising. There may be occasions when its OK, but it requires strict scrutiny. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• It doesn't get strict scrutiny. Or rather, it does if the user behaves as correctly as this one did, but if he'd socked or paid someone to get that content into mainspace it would have sailed in, because we don't have the volunteers to police this stuff when it's submitted via normal channels. The effect of strict scrutiny on these cases is to punish the user behaviour we want to encourage.— S Marshall T/ C 06:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Conflict of interest editing is highly discouraged but not prohibited as per WP:COI. I think this is is not restricted to just making edits to existing articles but also creating new ones. This editor has been bold enough and decided to come out clean from the word go about the possible COI they might have for being an employee of the subject but even before publishing they have gone ahead and created a draft for scrutiny by the community. There is no issue with the draft that shows the article is being recreated for promotion purposes which would in effect dent the credibility of Wikipedia. Even if someone else was to write it, it would be more or less the information that can be found on the sources readily available on the web. Personally I don't see any harm to let an employee create an article about a notable organization they work for while adhering to all rules set by the Wikipedia community. Tushi Talk To Me 04:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Weak restore. Move draft to main space. I believe this is an informative and well-written article and it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Knox490 ( talk) 03:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• I've no idea if this comment relates to this item or not, I've moved it here from being place somewhere in the middle of the discussion above, but given the various attempts made by the editor adding this and not really understanding how they'd end up here, it's not clear if it's this or was supposed to be a new listing or whatever... -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Andreas Lubitz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Allow recreation, Sources such as this and this has since given his life extensive coverage, the unique nature of this crime and three AfDs first closed as keep, second procedural closed and third AfD not given a full discussion, I'd like to give this another chance. The full protection seems unnecessary. Also to note he has received extending coverage over a period of time with recent sources such as [4], [5] and [6]. I am currently working on a version in my sandbox. However one of my main issues is why was this page fully protected in the first place? Before I start working on it I am requesting specifically an unprotect. It was fully protected to prevent people from working on it I feel it was a violation of WP:AGF as there was no disruption on the page. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse clear, appropriate decision. BIO1E applies, all relevant coverage belongs in the article Germanwings_Flight_9525. The subject, the co-pilot who crashed the plane has his own section at Germanwings_Flight_9525#Andreas_Lubitz, and that section is currently quite small, meaning very little justification to spin it out into a daughter article. If others disagree, I recommend referring the question to an RfC at Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525#Splitting Andreas Lubitz. No material has been deleted. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I am specifically asking for an unprotect. Recreation can come after discussion on the talk page. Also this is the only confirmed person is commercial aviation history to do this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Strong endorse current situation, WP:ONEEVENT applies. No notability outside the context of the (tragic) crash. Stifle ( talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  Changed to strong endorse per below. Stifle ( talk) 09:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation - after reading the draft I am convinced that this can become a fully fledged about this person. All reliable sources can authoritatively verify that this is indeed the first pilot in commercial aviation to have done such an act.The degree of significance of the person in this event is also very high thus my support for a spin out of the main article about the incident. FWIW, even record breakers do it at single events and they are considered notable for it :) Tushi Talk To Me 02:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• SmokeyJoe and Stifle what about the full protection, do we think this is warranted? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Oppose removal of protection until there is a demonstration of consensus for a spinout at Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• What is the policy based on full protection? No one is attempting to restore without consensus, however full protection discourages others from working on the article. This may be a violation of WP:AGF. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• My passing view is that there is no discouragement to anyone to work on Germanwings_Flight_9525, that discussion to spinout should be on its talk page, and that the request here to unprotect will so very easily by misread and misrepresented as permission to reverse the AfD-mandated merge. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Maybe on amateur hour, but not to us ten year vets. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• The request to unprotect would be trivial if you could point to a discussion showing consensus for the spinout. In this discussion, reviewing the AfD and subsequent changes, I don't see reason to agree. The draft article doesn't alleviate the concerns that drove the AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Where is a guideline that states we full protect articles without consensus for spinout? We don't even full protect disruptive editing, only disputed BLP violations which this is not. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Page protection is done on a case-by-case basis. In this case, you should ask the deleting admin, but I observe that the title has thrice been reverted from the redirect, twice by yourself, and I infer that you have no reason to ask for unprotection except to revert the redirect, and that consensus at AfD was for the redirect and that you are failing to make a case to overturn that consensus. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The reversion were done well within policy as the AfD has not been closed. The administrator is has retired. I see no reason to retain the protection. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• I would not be supportive of removing protection, as the ultimate rationale for the request seems likely to be a desire to do an end-run around consensus once everything has calmed down. Stifle ( talk) 11:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  @ Stifle: that is a violation of AGF, I intend only to expand the section however in the future if a split is warranted it is more inviting to those who wish to do so. There is no reason for protection here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  And that's a violation of WP:AAGF. Your persistent invocation of AGF makes me think this is a case of the lady doth protest too much, methinks. You have been presented with an alternative of creating a draft page and bringing that here so it can be assessed for appropriateness. Good faith would involve accepting that consensus, understanding why others are suspicious about your desired outcome, and following that pathway. Stifle ( talk) 09:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Support the idea of more knowledge about this subject in its own article if new sources are available. No support if no new sources are available since last consensus to prevent this article, no support for expanding the Germanwings Flight 9525 article (beyond a few newly constructed sentences touching on any new sources). — Prhart com♥ 03:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply