Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REALbasic

REALbasic

Delete. Any article which pertains to provide a fair overview of a subject needs to include both pro and con attributes of the subject matter. This article has been repeatedly edited so as to remove information pertaining to the cons of this product so as to portray only supposedly good things about this product. This product was was originally designed for the Macintosh platform only, and for many years it ran on the Macintosh platform only, and then with the introduction of RB2005 this product was extensively modified. The cons the modifications need to be reflected within this article as they are both part of this product's history and portray an accurate portrait of the reliability of the product. The original Macintosh interface and numerous features have been removed since the introduction of RB2005, which has upset numerous users of this product, who are not being allowed a voice in pointing out their displeasure with the product as easily verfied by examining copy of the last major release of this product (5.5.5) prior to the revamping of this product within RB2005. In addition there are issues with an extensive increase in the amout of bugs experienced with this product since RB2005 was intoduced, as verfied by this product's own feedback pages upon the publicsher's own web site. There have also been concerns about changes made to terms under which the demo of product can be used, differences between pro and standard version, and modifications made to the pricing of this product (i.e., a move away from simply purchasing a update to having to buy a update and subscription instead. Wiki is not suppose to be a free advertising site for Real Software. Unless sections are added to cover Missing Features, Non Functional Features, and Other Modifications, and the like this article should be removed as it it nothing more than propaganda to sell a commercial product. TruthInAdvertising 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow. Deizio 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I see that a very long-winded section (that I assume you wrote) has been removed from the article. You can edit the article yourself using a concise, encyclopedic tone to write about all the changes you've gone on about. Bringing it here (or writing about what's wrong with the article in the article) is certainly not a constructive solution. Grandmasterka 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per bad-faith nom. This AFD is NOT the place to air your grievances about a content dispute. Try RfC, RfM or RfAr, but whatever you do, don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. ---J.Smith 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Grandmr and JSmith. Bucketsofg 04:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep if you feel the article is missing something, you can add it (as long as you don't vandalize existing content or break NPOV. Oscar Arias 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. Aplomado - U T C 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per above.--SirNuke 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]