Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperBac

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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HyperBac

This is probably advertising. Google gives a whopping 29 unique results, and a lot of those seem to be spamming forums, press releases, or submissions by the company rep. The news coverage on their website is little help. Chaser T 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Also fails WP:CORP's section on products.--Chaser T 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't consider this spam nor do I consider it advertising. This is a new and unique product from a small, independent Australian software vendor which is not hurting anyone. I can name about 100 other articles for deletions from multi-national, billion dollar software companies which are allowed to stay, why pick on these guys? Strong Keep for me. --Afuller77 04:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all spam. SM247My Talk 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn software/advertising --IslaySolomon 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't have much interest in "compressed disk based backup software for Oracle 9i and 10g", but I suspect that sort of thing does belong in an encyclopedia. After a bit of editing, it's no longer spam. Perhaps we could refocus the discussion about whether the subject is notable or not. --TruthbringerToronto 04:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, product released a month ago with no press or industry coverage that I could find other than company submitted blubs and spam. Their very simple site has exactly one press release and one "customer success" story. Claims are unverifiable; just seems to be another random backup solution for 9i/10g. Kuru talk 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't find any references to this company in an Australia New Zealand database. Couldn't find much in the way of verifiable material from reliable third party sources either for this software. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:SPAM --WinHunter (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep not too spammish, has Utility —Pengo 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment using your own young proposed guideline as a reason for keeping an article is a bit bizarre... Fram 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How else is it going to catch on? (And another reason was given also) —Pengo 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The product seems to cover a valid topic area. Isn't specifically offensive in my case. Obviously a start up, but I suspect the topic is worth consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.187.132 (talk • contribs)
CommentThis was this users first edit Fram 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence that they pass WP:CORP Kevin 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Even if it didn't fail WP:SPAM, it would surely fail WP:CORP with flying colors (if colors can fly due to failure). -- Kicking222 11:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as it fails WP:CORP. --Charlesknight 12:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for its failure to muste WP:CORP. --Roisterer 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Fram 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for multiple reasons: WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, not verifiable by reliable (third party) sources; non-notable product. --MCB 06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Compress & encryption of backups aren't unusual, and neither are database system add-on products. No evidence of popularity either. Fails all WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services. If there was an article for the company, it could have been merged there. --Zigger «º» 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rebecca 05:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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.