Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaxiVista

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. Cbrown1023 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

MaxiVista

MaxiVista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page is about a generic commercial kvm product and should be merged into the kvm page. The page is only used by the company to advertise their product. References to competing products, alternatives or even the general kvm page are frequently removed by company officials and thus this article does not bear any encyclopedic value. Qdr 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Keep 1. Maxvista is not just "a generic commercial kvm product". If you review the specs carefully, you will find that it rather consists of two different features while the major feature is rather the screen extension to another computer by using a virtual video adapter. As far as I can see, this is a quite unique functionality. The links to other software programs do not have this major feature and cannot be compared to Maxvista at all. The particularly mentioned program "Synergy" is frequently considered falsely as an alternative to Maxvista. However, it completely lack the essential virtual video card functionality.

2. I cannot see any false statement or advertisement language in the debated article. It uses neutral description according to the Wikipedia guidelines.

3. I cannot see a compelling reason why a product description must include competitor links. If they are considered to give the feeling of objectivity they should be appropriate and as far as I can see the links which have been added and removed occasionaly do not have much in common with the virtual video function of Maxvista and can be considered as spam.

In conclusion I formally request to remove the deletion tag. 84.166.80.9 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Unless I've been dooped by for-hire reviewers, there appear to be multiple reviews of the product including [1] (though I'll have to say that review is suspiciously optimistic). Lots of blog chatter which isn't notable in and of itself for the purposes of WP:RS, but its always a good sign in my opnion. Needs to be re-written to be a bit more neutral, but squeaks by WP:SOFTWARE. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. Fails to meet notability criteria. The history of the article shows a repeated effort to insert a link to the company's website and delete links to competitors, which suggests WP:COI. The content reads like a product brochure (see WP:ADS). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

• Delete Unless someone comes up with multiple non-trivial references. Agree with Authalic about the WP:COI manipulation. --jaydj 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Virtual desktop article should be rewritten to include this type of software and the products such as MaxiVista, ZoneOS, etc. should be added to the list. Maybe I'll do that today.... --jaydj 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • nevermind. This concept is adequately described here. Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor and the product is already mentioned. --jaydj 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Authalic. MER-C 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. per User:CosmicPenguin's good points, but warry of WP:COI manipulation.--C.lettinga 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Authalic- really fails WP:CORPSkierRMH,07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Software notability should not be determined by reviews - there are many Web sites that review any and all software that comes down the pike. Most of it is completely irrelevant. A software wiki, maybe, but Wikipedia, no. Mus Musculus 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as it seems to be a unique software concept. There seems to be any competition. I cannot find biased advertising language in the neutral description as well. Please quote evidence if you find any bias. I assume, that other entries (mainly 'Synergy' and 'Multiplicity') have been deleted as these programs completely lack the Maxivista core functionality of the virtual video port/screen extension. (Would this user 'Qdp' please stop removing my discussion entries and start accepting that my ISP (T-Online) is using shared IP addresses for approx. 50 Million internet users here?! All T-Online users use IP addresses like mine. It is amazing to see how aggressive you are trying to manipulate this article. What is your motivation here, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.88.56 (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
• Mr. 84.166.* Your IP space does just allow 65535 addresses. Also your style of discussion and your way of arguing gives away your identity easily. You already voted twice in this discussion, while adhering to WP:COI would require you not to take part at all. Please abstain from further attempts of manipulation. You may also notice that nobody cares whether your software is unique, if its wikipedia entry violates WP:CORP and WP:COI. If you want to erase any doubt in manipulation, please get an account and sign your comments. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future. --Qdr 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Qdr: 1. Your initial deletion request is showing that you fail to understand the actual purpose of Maxvista at all. 2. Regarding your false accusation that I would be associated with Maxvista please finally aqcuire some basic skill about dynamic IP provision for dial-in internet accounts: Such IP addresses are temporarily assigned to millions users of ISP clients. If you would visit the makers website you rather find the IP 82.165.99.90, so finally stop making false accusations. 3. It is not my software, but I am a user of the software. I hope that this does not prevent me from defending this article 4. I have not manipulated anything. Rather YOU have erased MY vote. 5. I have not doublevoted (See 2.) 6. Sign your comments with full name and address before you try to teach me about id. Your Wikipedia participation does not show significantly more contribution than the continuous attempt to delete this article. 7. Refrain from false accusations in the future where you can provide no evidence. Regarding IP addresses, see #2. 8. Provide reason for your aggressive motivation to remove this particular software entry. Why not promote to delete Acronis_TrueImage or acdsee (Just as random examples) as well if you try to use WP:COI/WP:CORP as a vehicle to justify deletion of a software listing? 10. Regarding WP:SOFTWARE: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.115.119 (talk • contribs) 4:36, 17 December 2006
• Update - I have updated Multi_monitor and feel that it adequately covers this functionality (in Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor ). Cheers. --jaydj 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Jaydj: How does the reference at Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor cover the two embedded Maxvista features of remote control plus extended screen? Maxvista is not only a multi monitor tool but also a remote control tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.92.150 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 December 2006
  • Fixed. --jaydj 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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.