Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstallShield

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InstallShield[edit]

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

Okay, I'll be bold here. A recent article in The Wikipedian talked about a company's attempt to get a Wikipedia article for their product because their rival company's product has a page. This is, of course, an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but in this case, it has merit. InstallShield is sourced to one source (the other being a press release) and it only talks about the parent company, not the product at all. Fails WP:PRODUCT. shoy (reactions) 12:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recent article editors @The Anome and Green Cardamom as well as the article author @WWB. shoy (reactions) 12:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I am really getting tired of all these AfD nominations that simply look at the state of the article concerned. There is plenty of coverage of InstallShield - try clicking on the 'books' link in the nomination for example. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company played a significant role in the development of personal computing (and is probably well known to those who spent a lot of time using Windows 95 or XP). I added a few sources to help substantiate this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike InstallAware, InstallShield is actually notable. —Ruud 10:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the ping, shoy. I'm the blog post's author and, as I explained there, while the current article is not great, sources to reinforce its Notability do exist. That said, most of these are from the late 1990s and early 2000s, which will present a problem for bringing it up to date using RS sources. Nevertheless, Michig is exactly right, see also: WP:SURMOUNTABLE. WWB (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What happened to WP:BEFORE? A cursory look at the Chicago Tribune refs does give the flavor of a recycled press release, but the product is notable. If you read further down in the Wikipedian article, it says: "Although the InstallShield entry contains inadequate citations now, they definitely exist. Some of the stories are quite old, so they are not online, but it’s my opinion there is enough substantial reporting to justify their inclusion. There’s Crain’s Chicago Business in November 1997 with 'Installation-software firm set for leap into corporate arena: raising money to push beyond vendor market' and InfoWorld with 'Installation software vendor to ship enterprise version' from June 1999, and more. The software has received less press recently, but the snarky IT news site El Reg has mentioned it twice in news stories this year. Taken as a whole, it’s my professional opinion that InstallShield meets the Notability requirement. 'Other stuff exists' need not apply." As the Chicago Tribune article says, if you used Windows in the past, you've probably used IS. Limited versions of IS were distributed with software development tools because MS laid down some installation requirements but did not supply its own application for doing it. Surprisingly, Install Shield Limited Edition apparently still ships with Microsoft's Visual Studio 2015 Professional and Enterprise editions.[1] Glrx (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This software tool is certainly notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of hits on HighBeam Research. Google Books reveals substantial hits, too, including this archived article from InfoWorld. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2016 (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.