Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LabChart

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 redirect to ADInstruments. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LabChart

Sending this article here after I reversed my own speedy. Another admin had previously declined the speedy but I overlooked that. The author is convinced that this doesn't read like an ad but to me it sounds like a page out of a product catalog. There is a single source but I cannot access it. I bring it here because the community can decide its outcome. The piece needs a considerable re-write and multiple reliable sources are expected. I suspect this is just one of many data recorders available in the medical setting. JodyB_talk 15:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: It does read like an advertisement. Also appears to fail WP:Product/WP:ORG notability requirement. If it is to exist, it should exist on the company page as per WP:Product. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established. Does seem like stright from a catalog. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't been improved since I originally requested speedy deletion. Non-notable product. Primarily advertisement. —G716 <^T·_C> 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 19:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: As I was trying to mention earlier this was not suppose to be an advertorial but rather an informative tool for researchers outside looking for possible programs to use in their research. I think now that it is more suitable for it to be merged with its hardware PowerLab. I've tried to put some of the top journals using this software in its research. Tegu01 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the interim it was made even worse by Tegu01, who spammified it with a bunch of synth. (I've rv'd) As I noted at the AfD for MacLab/Powerlab, gimmicky, out-of-context misappropriation of so-called "citations" on a company's website does not qualify them as Wikipedia references, which is how they were (again!) forwarded here on WP. That the website calls these allusions "citations" is misguiding, and is no more meaningful than suggesting that a researcher who times an experiment is "citing" his watch. Adding such WP:SYNTH a second time is beyond Hanlon's razor. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To Fullstop: Well I might have made it worse but the way you rewrote that whole article before without all the references to me made it sounded more like an advertisement. and I saw the rather mean note you left at the powerlab wiki which I thought was uncalled for. 220.244.40.110 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 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.