Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 21:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paessler (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Paessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Anton555a (creator, SPA) with no rationale. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Last year this was AfD by User:DGG, but kept (I was not pinged, and I missed that AfD). Unfortunately, the sources presented there do not seem to be very helpful. User:CorporateM provided to links to Networked World - but they are not about company, but its products (and notability is not inherited). User:TYelliot provided another product review irrelevant here ([1]), and one on-topic ref ([2]), but it is mostly a listing of the company's products; the "in-depth" coverage of the company itself is 2 paragraphs, including a sentence "the company is not one of the bigger names in network monitor applications." The other ref added by the creator is [3], and it reads like a press release, complete with 50% of the content being a lenghty quote from company's CEO. I don't see what would make us keep this entry here; it is just a minor business with no reasons for being encyclopedic. Please keep in mind encyclopedia is not a business directory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Network World material is essentially a press release, at least as I read it, , where he president of the company is allowed to say whatever he wants to say, without analysis. Unfortunately, even well known trade magazines do that--there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it--they make a convenient source for people looking for information who just need to know what the producer says about it. But that doesn't make them a RS for anything but the incontestable facts, and it certainly doesn't make them a RS for notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This in-depth competitive review cannot credibly be compared to a press release repost. The article specifically says that the editor obtained the product itself and tested it in a lab environment. It includes a description of their testing methodology. The source is almost 7,000 words long. For technology, to get a copy of the tech itself and have experts from a credible publication test it in a lab environment - this the most reliable form of independent fact-checking available and is far superior to most press sources that are just repeating what they were told by bias parties. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:CorporateM: I do not dispute it is a reliable source. For the product of that company. It does not discuss the company itself. Can you see the difference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just addressing that specific point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a tricky one as there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the company around, but its main product appears to be notable. It might be best to refactor it to be about PRTG Network Monitor (or merge with an undeleted version of that article), for which independent sources exist (although they're not the most convincing): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paessler_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089523173"