Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Freeze (software)

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 nomination was Keep and Cleanup. – Avi 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep_Freeze_(software)

Appears to be an advertisement for the product. Nathan.manzi 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if referenced. A very well-known piece of software in the corporate world; however, the article needs references to prove this. Is something like [1] the sort of thing that'll get it comfortably within WP:SOFT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevildo (talk • contribs)
Comment - Regardless of notability, this article has some POV issues fyi. The article claims the product is a leader in the field and that some Argentinian guy has a grudge against it...? These claims need to be cited. Wickethewok 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Weak Keep, primary problem is POV (reads like a press release or corporate web page), ~~and notability isn't entirely convincing.~~ Might be willing to change my vote with a) a revision to remove POV problems ~~and b) comments from users familiar with the program.~~ Didn't read Tevildo's comment close enough; sounds like someone who would know, with an edit history that doesn't hint at bias. Changing my vote with the caveat that POV issues should be worked out if it's to be kept. HumbleGod 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above stated, I have to note that I'm pretty uncomfortable with aspects of this nomination. The user who nominated this for AfD was heavily involved in another page up for AfD (possibly an employee of that program's ~~publisher~~ distributor) that lists this product as a "direct competitor." I don't like the possibility that an employee from Company A is nominating competing software from competing Company B for AfD. Doesn't really invalidate the nomination, but it does make me squirm a little. HumbleGod 00:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no, I think he's an employee of one of the distributors for HDGuard, see Eye4you AFD. It is possible that he's simply trying to help us by clearing out non-notable software, but this sort of conflict of interest is a factor. Kuru ^talk 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed original comment to reflect this. Doesn't reduce my discomfort with this, and still feel it deserves mention, but as I said it doesn't necessarily affect the validity of the nomination. HumbleGod 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, agreed! It absolutely deserves mention, and your logic above mirrors my own feelings. Kuru ^talk 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed, I am actually employed by the company eye4you, we do distribute HDGuard which in turn is somewhat of a competitor of Deep Freeze (Deep Freeze has little presence in Australia and Europe). I absolutely love wikipedia, and thought it may have been a good idea to post articles on our company which is well known throughout the Australian public/private education arena, however, after reading through the WP articles I do agree that both the HDGuard and eye4you articles should be removed. Notability doubts and corporate _influence_ are present, and I think that this article shows signs of it also. Nathan.manzi 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thank you very much for the clarification. This does alleviate my concerns! Kuru ^talk 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and mine as well. I agree that POV is a factor with the current version of this article, and hedge my "weak keep" vote on the hope that this will be changed soon. Judging from the edit history of the article and editor contributions, it doesn't appear that corporate influences were directly a factor; if anything, I think some editors may have just relied too much on company lines when fleshing out the article. Hopefully this can be fixed, otherwise I expect we'll be seeing this here again soon. HumbleGod 03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seems to meet many of the requireds in the guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE - mainly section 1, with many (notable) press mentions[2]. Some industry awards.[3] I'm not seeing anything on the corporate site that I wouldn't associate with professional enterprise level software; per Tevildo's voucher above. Article does have a little too much adcopy in it, and it should be copyedited to weed out the puffery. Kuru ^talk 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per Kuru EuroSong ^talk 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good article, but need to check if the software is well-known and distributed. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Known software, has press mentions, etc. --Zoz (t) 12:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep article has serious POV and neutrality issues as it stands, but these can be fixed without deletion. Arker 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.