Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciphire

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ciphire

Non-notable company -- Longhair 13:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Self nom. Longhair 13:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Self nom? Did you mean you vote do delete because you nominated it?
• Since it scores about 20000 google hits, I'll vote to keep it. Radiant! 13:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep reasonable but unspectacular Google score, a couple of notable products Changing to weak delete in light of Hyperzonk's considerable research on the subject. I don't put as much stock as he does in the Alexa rank in this case, as I believe that when one wants to download free software, one is just as likely (if not more) to go somewhere like download.com or something similar than go to the developer's own site. As a result, the Alexa ranking might not be as representative of notability of a software project as it would of, say, a blog. However, I fully agree with the rest of Hyperzonk's thinking on this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It certainly does get a lot of Google hits, but they appear to be almost entirely self-promotional entries in open-authorship places and free download pages. Why did I look into this so deeply? Because this site's score on Alexa is the astonishingly low 3,790,861! I'm sorry, but truly notable software companies do not rank a million places lower than my own vanity web site. On its freshmeat entry, you will find that this software's vitality is only 0.03%, and its popularity is only 0.34%. Lastly, as I have said before, I don't care what marketing calls it, anything that has a version number beginning with zero is in alpha, not even in beta (call me old-fashioned if you must). As far as I can tell, the only notable thing about this software company is that it somehow managed to get a butt-load of Google hits without being either notable nor widely adopted. Kudos to their marketing team! HyperZonk^talk 17:20, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Hear hear! Do you want to write my VfD intros Hyperzonk, you seem more awake than myself :)~ Longhair 17:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, you got me confused. It could be the case that they're spending more effort on marketing than on actually doing something (that's a viable strategy in the shareware market, I suppose). I browsed around in their forum (which is active, but not that active) and found out that their official release date is january 11th, 2005 (that's for CiphireMail, which is their only product but will have some add-ons later on). What struck me as peculiar is that this same post says they spent three years in development and a fourth in testing. However, all their software purports to do is encryption and sending of e-mail, which both consists of a bunch of mathematical or logical algorithms that are widely available in open source. This seems to support the idea that they're hyping up something relatively simple, in order to make money (their current product is free but they will release a commercial version later on). Clever, I guess.
  • Anyway. Since the software was officially released about a month ago, I don't think it deserves an encyclopedia page until it sees some widespread usage. Given its current Alexa rating that seems unlikely. So change vote to delete. Radiant! 17:45, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone gives some notable content. Zzyzx11 20:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, also completely lacking useful information--nixie 00:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the page should be extended 84.153.114.184 01:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Matt Crypto 15:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.