Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EtherPeek

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EtherPeek

Advertising copy for non-notable product. See also: OmniPeek & AiroPeek, additional advertising copy by same author for related products. Listed separately. Steven Fisher 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years. 2) Please define advertising. As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising. Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template? In fact, you could pretty much replace Wireshark with OmniPeek in that entry -- would that be better? 3) This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition. Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I am not a contributor to Wireshark, nor any other such product. On the other hand, you are a developer of EtherPeek (see [1] email address at mahbound's talk page). -- Steven Fisher 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Advertising, not notable and no references.--Auger Martel 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to OmniPeek. Have I tried to hide my connection? No. I used my real name and e-mail. See my user info for direct e-mail. Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with? (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: [2]) 2) Apologies are in order: I assumed [3] was the same Steven Fisher. Now I see that his first name is not the same. I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher. 3) I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording? Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue? As for being notable, how does one prove notability? Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek - [4], 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek [5]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (talk • contribs)

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.