Talk:Alvarion/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of employees

The body of article states that the company has 444 employees, yet the box to right shows 1043. Please clarify.

~Tclose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tclose (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

58.225.59.247 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)== References ==

I am re-adding the {{unreferenced}} tag. Please cite sources other than (or at least in addition to) the company's own website to back up the content here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article needs more to it, although I was glad to see it here at wikipedia...(My spanish friend mentioned he had worked there and I was able to find it pronto here...love this place)-adam

Recent Activities section

This appears to be a collection of press releases. The wording talking about either Alvarion or one of its partners "have announced" shows that the references are all sourced from press releases. The section just reads like marketing for the company. noq (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How so? The content is supported by third party sources, not "press releases." Partnerships with other companies is certainly notable. Wikifan^{Be nice} 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well,

1. this reference has the phrase global-press-releases in it and comes from the companies own site. And the other ref from that recent activity is the other companies web site.
2. This reference is clearly taken from this press release.
3. This is this press release and this is clearly sourced from the same press release.
4. This is from Marketwire and has the words "Press release" at the top.

noq (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You infer these edits - which are verifiable - constitutes as "marketing." This is simply false. Relations with other companies is certainly notable. If it is published by other news organizations and third parties it can be merged into the article. I suggest you find a wikipedia policy that supports your claims. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Press releases is a good start. As shown above, the references given are regurgitated press releases. Do you intend to publish every new customer they get? They are sourced back to press releases not independent sources. noq (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How are they regurgitated press releases? By virtue of being a press release does not some how negate notability. An alliance with another company, notice of buy-out, purchasing of shares, etc..is relevant. If these issues are being broadcast by third party sources we can cite them. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the only edit that could qualify as a certified press release is this one source. The rest are third party material. Globes is a major business newspaper.

What about the quoted references above that either say "PRESS RELEASE" or are almost word for word copies of an article that says "PRESS RELEASE" - are these not then press releases? They cover the majority of your reliable sources. The Globe piece is just an edit of a press release with no further insight. noq (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The globes report includes analysis. Honestly, what is the problem here? Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it - can you explain what bit dose not come directly from the press release? My problem is just adding marketing material to the article dose not improve the quality of the article and the announcement of a new customer is not itself notable. I'm not seeing it as common practise to publish them here. noq (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're dismissing verifiable information as "marketing material." This is your POV. The sources are cited by third parties. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm dismissing press releases as marketing material - you are denying the fact they are press releases despite the evidence above. The press releases have been published by third parties, that often happens, it's what they are there for. It does not change the fact that they are press releases. I'm questioning whether news reports of company x has a new customer is worth being included in an encyclopaedia entry about company x. WP:NOTNEWS is probably significant here. noq (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you are persisting in the marketing activity. And have yet to answer my previous question. noq (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

these "press releases" are being reported by third party, reliable sources. Companies signing contracts with others or collaborating in other industries is notable and in this case verifiable. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)