Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alertboot

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. (X! · talk) · @761 · 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alertboot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have only been able to find a few press releases and no significant independent coverage. Article was written by the president of the company. Haakon (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just an add - also nominate for WP:CSD#G11 Codf1977 (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MaRBLE (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC) — User:Marble600 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1) Reviewing the intial article itself as posted by contributor is not relevant to WP:CSD#G11 as written. It was not overly promotional at all, based on what I read.

2) I'd argue that being associated/developed with Sophos is notable. At the very least, WP:CSD does NOT apply here.

3) Having said that, the article needs improvement.

Comment @EdoDodo -- It appears you marked me as a "Single-Purpose Account" (few or no other edits). While I'll admit I have not been an active member, post-count is irrelevant to the reasons I presented. (If it matters, I've been registered since September 2006, so I'm hardly a sock puppet.) My comments regarding this article are pretty balanced and neutral; I'm judging it based on its own individual qualities and the speedy deletion rationale given, based on WP's rules. My stated bullets, in and of themselves, hold merit regardless of who posted them. Feel free to communicate directly with me, if you'd like. Cheers! Marble600 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

What concerns me, is that you made your first ever edit 10 minutes before this edit (to a test page) and that this was your second edit. In it's self a bit strange, but your knowedge of WP policies seems very good for a non-editing user. While I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet and am assuming good faith, I find it hard to believe this edit was truly your second ever WP edit.Codf1977 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can understand your skepticism, however, it really is the case. Long-time lurker, what can I say? :) (You know, we lurkers do exist in large numbers; I'm sure, prior to August 6, 2009, you were lurking too.) Regarding my knowledge of the WP policies, they're linked on the article itself and referenced by the users here; IMO, it's not very difficult to read and understand them, especially when they're right in front of you. (And, yes, I'm also the guy who reads the rules in online forums too.) I think you'd agree that my opinion is not "rah-rah-ing" the product with a "Keep it! This product is teh best!!!!!!1one" statement:

>> The reason for Speedy Deletion was "non-notable software" given by Haakon, and then you added that it should be considered for Speedy Deletion for being promotional (WP:CSD#G11).

>> I read the original posting, and I didn't find it to be "...exclusively promotional...[with] need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic".

>> Furthermore, WP:CSD#G11 states that "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion".

In light of that statement and since it wasn't exclusively promotional and/or spamming, I'd argue against using that particular rationale as a case for deletion.

Now, is it notable software? Dunno...I suppose that will be determined by the community-at-large. However, if this company is associated with Sophos, that's notable in and of itself, since Sophos is one of the largest security software firms in the world, on par with McAfee, et al. So, I simply offered a counteropinion to encourage discussion in lieu of CSD, for which I didn't feel was the case here. At the very least, you can't deny that I made some valid points worthy of further discussion. We may disagree, but neither that nor my "edit count" nor the fact that I like to test out wiki-specific code prior to posting should, in any way, discount my worthwhile argument. Cheers! Marble600 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into an argument over this, as I said I am assuming good faith on your part. Please however see it from other editor’s point of view, most people don’t register accounts and then wait over three years before making their first edit, most register accounts just before they make their first edit.

You will see I have removed the speed tag, as it was contested by the another editor (which you could have done) I still think the article is promotional and am sure it will fail as non-notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in secondary sources. Zero ghits in google books and nothing significant in the news archive either. Pcap ping 05:21, 14 January 2010 (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.