Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NVnetbackup

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. Proto||type 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NVnetbackup

Advertisement for software on Sourceforge. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 23:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's complete crap, there is a wikipedia article on openoffice.org, windows, linux, etc. Are you going to remove those as well? This isn't an advertisement, it's documentation with a comparison of why someone would use this software. 19:42, 13 April 2006 (EST) Do not delete.  Musashi5191645 

Delete as per nom, it isn't notable software. Musashi is trying to make this into a straw man argument by stating highly notable software. Ansell 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So just because something is new means it's worthy of deletion? How are people supposed to find out new information if the people with access to said information use that sort of mentality? Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Just because something isn't popular does not give you or anyone else the right to censor it.  Musashi5191645 

Wikipedia is not a democracy.  RasputinAXP  c 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the sense in being able to freely contribute if you are only going to be shot down by territorial billigerence? if there's something wrong with the article the tell me, because I refuse to accept the notion that an article can be nixed just because the subject matter is new and not too well known. Isn't the purpose of an 'encyclopedia' to provide a reference for otherwise unknown information? Or does everyone who reads the articles on this site already have all the knowledge contained therein? DO NOT DELETE  Musashi5191645 

Apart from looking like half a marketing report and half a user manual, neither of which things are what WP is about, it is NOT notable. Ansell 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles that could easily fall into the same category. So the only thing you have on this particular article is that it isn't notable. FINE, but that's still no reason to just delete it. How is it supposed to become known if people like you keep trying to withhold information? You say it looks like a 'marketing report' ... how can you market open source software? Usually you market something to make money but I'm not trying to make any money here, I'm trying to save people some money while at the same time, making them aware that they do have alternatives to common backup software. There's a stub on Veritas Backup Exec listed, so why can't mine be listed? Because it's not notable? Have you used it? Would you even know how? I have this bery same backup system implemented at over 100 of our client sites and it has never failed me. Of course, these are all banking and finance business who aren't known for going online and discussing how they backup their data so it's popularity (notability) is limited to the audience in which it has been exposed to. Your behavior about this is completely out of line, you are 'Biting the newcomer' something that's supposed to be explicitly prohibited here. Are you too good for the rules? My article does not deserve to be deleted, I am willing to hear your suggestions to make it better.  Musashi5191645 

Actually, now that you say it. There may be other articles with exactly the same reasons that should also be here for AfD discussion. I notice above that you talk like a marketer, particularly speaking of course of those who market Open Source software. They have their own particular style (also known as their POV). You are a maintainer of the software? A distributor? Both of these things come under the Vanity policy. Please note that we are not biting the newcomer. We are not biting anyone, if the article was notable, non POV, and possibly had some reason why as you point out, people would come to wikipedia to get information about it, we would not be going to all the trouble of putting it here and discussing the issue with you. Please dont make personal attacks, It is not your place to tell people they are biting newcomers. If someone else sees this then they may be in a neutral enough position to see that. Interestingly, the fact that you know about the policy reveals your depth of knowledge about wikipedia so far. Interesting how you have a customised signature, something which reveals your depth of experience. Ansell 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you were really serious about this article, Musashi5191645, you would write it so it sounds more like an encyclopedia article and less like a promotional pamphlet. That is all. Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. 28,000,000 Google hits for Openoffice.org, which has been around for years and is well-established and widespread. 93 hits for NVnetbackup, which appears to have been released this week. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise new products. Fan1967 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. --blue520 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Over 15490 packages are available in Debian and not one is related to this software. I think that is a very liberal notablity guideline for linux based OSS. Good luck though. [1] ccwaters 02:30, 14 April 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.