Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmniPeek (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Comments: This is a notable specialist product which has attracted non-trivial neutral coverage in the trade press. The article has references but no inline citations. The absence of inline citation makes it difficult to determine what is puff and what is sourced (Extensibility is an example of this). Conclusions: material which might be challenged and cannot be sourced should be removed; editors with conflicts of interest should recuse themselves from further editing of this article.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OmniPeek[edit]

Delete COI advertising plain and simple. Article was previously nominated and deleted in June 2006. Then recreated in December 2006 by SpacePacket who admits he works for WildPackets. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4. SWik78 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be coverage in reliable sources. See this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that most of those results are just pointing to people who are republishing the companies press releases, right? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per SWik78, as well as being advertising. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added three references -- actual reviews, not republished press releases. --Eastmain (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't matter that the article was written by an employee of WildPacket? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack notability. Luk suh 03:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was very careful to add references which are reliable sources, and I think that the three reviews are sufficient to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added two more references -- one is a recent review, and the other is a reference to a section describing integration with Cisco, on Cisco website. There is an endless number of other references on the web. SpacePacket (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is not advertising. It comments on, and is strictly limited to, the unique ability for OmniPeek to run plugins through a well-defined API. Of all the advertising copy that one could post about OmniPeek, this article has been carefully constructed to avoid, and focus only on extensibility, which is a notable characteristic, with references. This article is in no way any more of advertisement, and even less of one, than the article on WireShark. SpacePacket (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpacePacket aka Chris, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is an excellent read. Thank you for the recommendation. Having read this article, I do not think I have violated any policies. The article in question is about an extensible network application platform, and describes some of the ways in which it can be used and extended. I think it is notable, as there is no other network application platform like it. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to make the entry more appropriate as an article for Wikipedia. SpacePacket (talk) 23:27, 8 April 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.