Talk:Jatheon Technologies

Hi, I am looking for feedback and guidance on this page about Jatheon. Please feel free to make suggestions, comments, etc. Thank you!

Nomination for Speedy Deletion

So it turns out the primary contributor, User:Brentyoung has a LinkedIn profile, which was easy to find by a search on Google for brent young jatheon. They prominently link to the company there. I've preserved a screenshot (see the bottom) in case they conveniently remove the link after seeing this. There is a clear conflict of interest here, no matter how much the article creator may try to improve it, as he stated he would in the AfD discussion. Unless the article is rewritten from scratch by neutral party who has no relation to Jatheon Technologies, it is my humble opinion that it should not remain on Wikipedia.

With that noted, it's also important to consider that most of the information that is still in the article is useless trivia. This thing can phone home and report that a disk drive is broken. I'm sure the engineer who thought that up will be nominated for the next Turing Award. *sigh*. I dug around a bit and found most if not all "sources" to be rehashed press releases, which are not the independent sources that Wikipedia requires.

So in summary, the primary contributor's questionable relation to the company, and the lack of true sources make this article remain an advertisement for the company -- something which has no place on Wikipedia.

--Zabadab (Talk) @ 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Zabadab, there is no conspiracy here. Yes I know the guys at the company and linked to the site in my linkedin account to help increase visibility. That does not make a conflict of interest. The definition of conflict of interest is trying to advance a particular interest other than improving Wikipedia. It does not mean being involved with the organization about which one is writing. One can very easily contribute in a fair and neutral manner to a company to which s/he is associated. I am trying to stay very aware of that potential and am responding to the community's recognition that the initial entry was too 'spammy'. You are more than welcome to help edit it.

I am trying to help improve Wikipedia by adding valuable email archiving (a market I know something about) and startups/venture information. That started with Jatheon, USVP, and Ron Conway's pages. Note someone has added mimecast. I plan to help improve that entry too (currently quite advertising-oriented). There are other email archiving vendors doing interesting things in this space - smarsh, datacove, etc - that I would like to add to wikipedia.

Frankly, I think you are close to breaking the COI rules of not harassing me and have already broken the revealing the identity of the editor rule. My fault for using my name. BTW that should probably illustrate I am not trying to hide something here.

Aside: Jatheon's initial claim to fame was introducing a packet sniffing methodology to email archiving - that is novel. And dismissing the 451 Group's reports and other trade magazine articles as not "true sources" is a bit harsh. Of course some of the links are press releases for the obvious reason that when a company asserts something publicly it usually comes in the form of a press release.

I am trying to collaborate here but frankly I am feeling unfairly attacked.

Brentyoung (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. You've just admitted that you are related to the company. Ergo, you should not be editing this article at all. You're positively biased towards them, and it is impossible for you to create a fully neutral article, that lists both the good and the bad. I revealed your identity (something anyone could have done, and yes, you should have considered this when picking your username), to show that you have at least some relation to the company. I am not trying to harass anyone here. Rather, I am doing my part as a Wikipedian to keep the encyclopedia free of articles that are blatant advertisements, such as this one. Dismissing bad sources is not harsh. Places that copy and reword press releases are not good sources. An independent review, not sponsored by anyone -- that would be a good source. It's great to see you are willing to collaborate on topics regarding E-Mail archiving, and I don't want to discourage that at all. why not do it by improving E-mail archiving, instead of writing articles designed to make companies look good? I want an encyclopedia free of advertisements, and this is an advertisement in my opinion. Hence, I still believe it should be deleted and rewritten by someone completely unaffiliated with the company. That is the only way a completely balanced and unbiased article can be written. Keeping this article and making it balanced and unbiased would be equivalent to removing 80% of the content; rendering it a stub, which would turn it into spam for the company. Sorry, but Jatheon Technologies has yet to do something notable that can be attested to by independent sources. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Since you were substantially modifying your response (which is not nice at all!) while I was writing mine, I would like to add that I was responding to this revision. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 22:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, my interest is not in advancing anything other than the quality of Wikipedia. 'COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.' The contribution is intended to improve the value of Wikipedia's coverage of the Email Archiving market and is not a COI. There is no biased content or 'advertising' language on the entry. What exactly about it makes you claim it is an advertisement? If the existence of an article about a company is by definition an advertisement, then all companies should be removed from Wikipedia, no? Instead of deleting it, and therefore reducing Wikipedia's coverage of the email archiving market, why not add to it, change it, improve it. Brentyoung (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Statements such as
    "On October 23, 2007, the company launched[3] a reseller program to expand beyond direct sales.", or
    "On December 1, 2009, the company announced[5] a partnership with Dell. Under the partnership, four new products combining Dell's PowerEdge R610 and R710 server technology, Dell's PowerVault MD1000 storage arrays, and Jatheon's email archiving and management software in 3TB, 6TB, 12TB and 24TB virtual storage configurations were launched[6]."
    make it sound like an advertisement. In fact, that entire list of dates could be considered a list of selling points to attract potential customers. Then we've got this nugget right here:
    "The company was the first in the industry to introduce an email archiving appliance which operated primarily by utilizing packet sniffing technology to capture messaging traffic off of a company's network in a non-intrusive manner[citation needed]."
    There's no external, independent source to back it up, so it can go right out of the article. Where's the proof that it was the first company to do so? If it isn't sourced, it shouldn't be here. With that out of the way, we've now gotten the article down to three sentences; so it's a stub at best.
    
    Next, the external link Slimmed-down archive specialist Jatheon nudges toward 100 customers @ The 451 Group is not publicly viewable and requires me to log in. I can't verify anything there. The same goes for Jatheon targets email archiving market with appliance-based approach @ The 451 Group. The remaining links all speak in favor of Jatheon Technologies and do not offer a neutral point of view, making them very suspicious indeed.
    
    Regarding the sources, I've stated before that I do not consider rehashed press releases to be valid sources. The two sources quoting the company website are probably alright.
    
    Stripping this article of everything that makes it read like an ad would leave a three-sentence stub with an info-box. Which just begs the question, what is it that makes this company notable? Other companies that have articles on Wikipedia have done something big, or have had significant press-coverage that was something other than rehashed press releases, and both positive and negative. For Jatheon Technologies, that just isn't the case. They haven't done anything, that -- in my humble opinion -- meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. They're still just one of many vendors. Once they emerge as the market leader or whatever, they're welcome to have an article here for all I care. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, so your core problem with the entry is your feeling that Jatheon has not 'done anything'. My understanding is Wikipedia aspires to be a community driven encyclopedic reference of notable articles. By definition, most startups have not 'done anything'. So, Wikipedia would never have any startups, by your calibration. That would be a great loss. Like Funambol, [Open-Xchange]], HMailServer, Dovecot, Citadel/UX, mimecast, AppNexus, Attributor, Knewton, Zoomr, etc, Jatheon has raised a bunch of money, has lived for years (6 to be exact), has established partnerships with big-time OEMs (ie Dell), and is successfully selling products to a long list of customers who by the way would likely vehemently disagree that Jatheon has not 'done anything'. With all due respect, our energies would be better set on improving the entry than squabbling on this Talk page. My intention from day one has been to put a stake in the ground and hope the community helps keep improving it organically. This baneful argument is seriously negatively impacting my love for this community. Brentyoung (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My problem is not only that they have not done anything I consider notable, but also that you're affiliated with them and the resulting inability to create a neutral, non-biased article. But whatever, from what it looks like the Wikipedia administration has decided that you get to keep your article, so I'm dropping this. Looks like the spammers have won again, lowering the overall quality of this website. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 10:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Update: Disregard one of my sentences, which I've removed. I've misread "energies" as "engineers". It's too early in the morning. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 10:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)