Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VxWin

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 - deleted - SimonP 16:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VxWin

Delete this ad. Created by User:62.154.235.58 who later logged in as User:KUKA to upload some images. VxWin is sold by a company called Kuka Controls. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/CeWin. Rhobite 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant ad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another ad. Zzyzx11 18:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I am really sad that you guys voted for deletion of my articles, because I spent a lot of time creating them. It was not meant to be commercially persuasive but only an informative description of what is nowadays possible in the field of real-time operating systems. I tried to keep the article as objective as possible. Perhaps you can tell me which paragraph(s) sound too much like advertising then I can consider changing or deleting them, but please do not destroy my whole work! -- KUKA 09:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you may want to save a copy elsewhere - David Gerard 20:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP if not sooner - David Gerard 20:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I think this article is very interesting but I don't feel like urgently having to buy this product now. As Windows XP and the like have found their way into Wikipedia why not other software as well? 217.184.102.44 17:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) 217.184.102.44 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to this VfD and that for CeWin.
  • So you're basically saying it isn't advertising because it didn't make you buy the product? I disagree, it's blatant advertising. There is no attempt to look at how the product fits into the history of computing, into a general category of products, to look at criticisms of the product -- the only perspective in which the product is looked at is "how can our product solve the problems of you, the prospective buyer?" and this is betrayed openly when the text comes right out and claims "Your application gets the best of both worlds". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: reads like an ad. Yes, some work went into this, I suggest you save a copy if you care. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam. Delete unless completely rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. In General, the deleting of Ads is a good thing as this is an encyclopedia. BUT: Let me ask you the question: have you ever heard of this technology before or found something on the web that explains it like this article? I guess the answer is NO. So, this article serves, even if it doesn´t present a critical view of the technology/product, as a means to give you an idea how it works and what can be done with it. Precisely the purpose of an Encyclodpedia! If you have any other views on the technology or discovered disadvantages, just edit the article or start a discussion. But deletion will lead to nothing. No information, no discussion. If you delete this article, you have to delete the Microsoft article too ... and all other articles on existing commercial products and goods. And "in dubio pro reo" (you could look it up, if it´s not been voted for deletion from the dictionary). Robert, 10:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) This vote by 62.154.235.58 (talk • contribs), author of the article.

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.