Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Striata Reader

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striata Reader

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources show that it's used, yes, but nothing more than that. Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What should they show in order to be good sources? Richm007 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG for links to and an explanation of what sources are acceptable. Simply showing places that use it (as you have done) is not sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as spam. Only one hit in google news archive (see link at the top here). Nothing in scholar or books. Pcap ping 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The software is used by over 2 million people. It has a specific use in decoding encrypted email attachments. There is not much anyone can write about it that isn't already on the Striata website so there are very few independent articles. However, many people search for and download "Striata Reader" every day. Richm007 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. Our guidelines are based on coverage by independent sources. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written like an advertisement, with headings like "Confidentiality", " Convenience", and "Diversity". The lack of independent commentary makes it impossible to write an unbiased article about the software. If all that can be said about it is found on the company's web site, which probably has a good google ranking on a search for it, there's no point in having a Wikipedia article that just regurgitates that; this site is not a software directory. Pcap ping 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance, I will resubmit the article should there be further coverage by independent sources into the future paying close attention to the requirements you have laid out. I appreciate the responses. Deletion accepted.Richm007 (talk) 12:03, 11 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.