Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MST Batch Converter

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.-Wafulz (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MST Batch Converter[edit]

Article about a software product that doesn't assert the notability of the subject. I know that in general, Ghits shouldn't be used as a reliable indicator of notability, but the 88 hits are formed mostly from mirrors of the company's press releases, etc., practically nothing that's an independent, non-trivial source of coverage. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This software is used in IBM's DB2 which is a major business solution. Therefore it should not be deleted. And just because it got 8 hits in about 2 weeks, should not make it a factor. (Johnkmetha (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Not that I have any reason not to believe this, but do you have any sources that verify the inclusion in IBM's product that aren't directly from MST? The release note that's cited in the article doesn't mention this at all, and I can't find anything via Google. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We at IBM cannot officially disclose what products we use from our vendors. I can say that we do use this product in our DB2 Content Manager 8.x solution. (Katiem222 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    - If we have no reliable source, then this is not a verifiable fact, I'm afraid. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage about the product in reliable sources. Its use in DB2 Content Manager is irrelevant as notability is no inherited. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is over 1.5 million users worldwide of DB2 Content Manager, i think it is relevant and removing this information will be disenfranchising your users of Wikipedia.(76.181.253.80 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Big numbers don't constitute a very good argument for having an article. If you believe that that the big number indicates notability, then you will need to demonstrate that through reliable sources covering the product. -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. The claims here, and in the article, if verified, would merit keeping. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (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.