Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQL Maestro

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 was delete. Only 'keep' is a conflict of interest, all 'references' on the page are to sqlmaestro.com, if it wasn't deleted via AFD it could have easily been deleted via WP:CSD#G11. Proto::► 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Maestro

This article is clearly advertising and not notable. Futurix 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources provided, no notability asserted, can this meet WP:CORP? Not at the moment. Budgiekiller 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. We are working on the content and improve it in several days. Fionik 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've improved the article according the Wikipedia Official Policy. Sqlmaestro 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still advertising (even more then before), shameless self-promotion, still non-notable... Futurix 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Futurix, what is the differ between your page FuturixImager and ours? I did utmost to write the article from the neutral point of view. May be you can advise me to do it better? Best Regards, Sqlmaestro. 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FuturixImager is not my page - I did not create it, I did not write it, and except two minimal changes I haven't edited it. Writing page about your product is promotion and forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Futurix 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i have examined all pages in the Database administration tools category and found that this article not more advertising than any other article in this category. Fionik 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you vote here? You have created that page! You are biased. Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page changed significantly from initial state. Don't bite newbies. Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record - none of the other pages in the Database administration tools category are as blatant advertising as yours. Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Completely not true. Let's take an example Advanced Query Tool. Can you show difference betwen AQT page and SQL Maestro? What makes AQT not advertising article comparing with SQL Maestro? What makes SQL Maestro blatant advertizing? Can you give clear answer? Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters though - even if they were advertising, this is not an excuse for yours (this is a hint to admins to remove that advertising as well). Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So they all advertising or not? If they advertising they all should be deleted, if they not advertising then your assertions about this page are biased because it has no differences from the other pages in this category. I just noticed that the article about viewer you created was added to the list of articles for deletion (hint, it was not me). Now i understand why you see so called "advertising" on SQL Maestro page. Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yesterday everning I asked an absolutely neutral man, a very respected person, a university professor (I can give the contact information if it's necessary) to remake the article. Three Wikipedia policies of Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View are observed.

In fact, before blaming in an advertisement let's understand the difference between an information article and an advertisement. If a mention about a thing with its short performance attributes is an advertisement, so this article and the main part of Wikipedia articles are advertisements. So, Parmalat is an advertisement of yoghurts, cheeses, butters, ice creams. Bolshoi Theatre is undoubtedly an advertisement of the theatre. Nero Burning ROM and Nero Digital are naturally avertisements of the appropriate shareware. Aside from, I guess the author of a product and the author of an article about the product may be the same person. All the more, such an accordance is nondescript.

2 Futurix: Sasha, ne volnuites. Krugom svoi i vsem kushat hochetsya :) Sqlmaestro 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me!

It is not verifiable anywhere except your own page (~~Verifiability~~), it is written by author(s) of the software (~~No Original Research~~, ~~NPOV~~) - the article violates every relevant Wikipedia rule.

Articles of Parmalat, Bolshoi Theatre, Nero Burning ROM, etc - are informational texts written by third-party people, who do not profit from the article: that's the main difference here. In your case we have article about a new (virtually unknown) commercial product, written by authors of the software - do I really need to spell out what's wrong here?

And, finally, you clearly know all that - the translation of your message in Russian ("Sasha, don't worry. There are friends around, and everyone wants to eat.") implies that.

Futurix 11:49, 15 January 2007 (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.