Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarWind Software - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Although it fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N. It doesn't meet the guidelines and it is a minor software technology as not as Windows and Apple. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable: all the Google News hits are based on their press releases, as do most of the hits on Google Search. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unintelligible article about a non-consumer software business: .... manufactures software iSCSI target and initiator, eithet tool for converting images of virtual machines from VHD to VMDK and virsa versa. I hope the article was not written by one of their programmers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~. I'm actually quite familiar with this company and their products. (I know: Notability Is Not Arakunem'ed). They're fairly well known in the storage networking and VM world, and the terminology in the article (virsa-versa's aside) is hardly patent nonsense (though it does look like a programmer wrote it). That said, this is one of those tight-niche markets that it is often hard to find significant coverage about. I'll see what I can dig up, and will tweak my !vote to K or D depending on my results. Arakunem^Talk 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got nothing. I can't find anything I would consider a reliable source that's not just a reprint of a company press release by Reuters, Marketwire, etc. As I said, the market they're in is a very tight niche, so substantial coverage is hard to find online... Arakunem^Talk 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is fine. A lot of companies of similar size have articles including Acronis, Open-E, Datacore, etc. They are all just as well known and good companies that do something truly unique and innovative. Yes, it's not as big as Apple but since where are there rules that only Apple and Microsoft should be on Wikipedia if people around the world use Wikipedia to learn about things? C'mon folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.49.106 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In general, saying "other articles exist" isn't generally accepted as an argument in favour of keeping this article. To be honest, I'm unsure if Acronis, Open-E and DataCore Software Corporation should actually exist, as they don't necessarily have reliable sources cited - I'll look at them later - but they aren't at issue here. We are discussing StarWind Software. Other articles have no bearing on that issue. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think the article should be kept. If the article language is not okay not - it should be fixed. As for me - I'm familiar with the company and it really produces nice products. wiki-Gato —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC). — Wiki-gato (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment No one has said that the article language is a problem - the problem is that there is no reliable sources of information other than the company's own website and their own press releases. If you can find some reliable, independent coverage (i.e. not a press release or anything else that the company have produced themselves), then this could be cited to show that they are notable. Despite looking, no editor has yet found anything of this nature. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of reliable, independent third-party coverage. Lots of press releases, but nothing independent. Since Wikipedia isn't a product guide or directory, "it really produces nice products" isn't really a cogent argument. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 25 August 2009 (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.