Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAGES

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The result was AfD withdrawn by nom after running for almost 9 days (and Wikipedia is known for its IT articles anyway). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAGES

This article was lately tagged CSD G11 as blatant advertising and speedy deleted, since the text makes no assertion of significance. An editor who worked on it is most unhappy about this. This article is wonderfully written and informative but may not belong on Wikipedia because it clearly fails WP:CORP, given independent and reliable coverage on this is quite thin. So where is the fuzzy line on these IT articles? I like them a lot (too much), so I get kinda wary about keeping things like this. On the other hand, IT coverage is one of Wikipedia's many strengths. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused comment. It was me who restored the article, though it seems as if Gwen may have been about to do so herself. The complaint she received about deletion was bitter, rather ill-tempered, and perhaps rude; but on looking at the article I had to agree that any promotion was not blatant (indeed, it didn't strike me as promotional) and I also thought that the author's complaint of a systemic pro-GNU-etc bias might have something to it; after all, it does seem that every Linux distro, however obscure, has its own article (a fact that I as a reader find very welcome). The article is primarily about a product, and therefore WP:CORP does not directly apply; further, if it did apply it would be a guideline, not a policy. Perhaps the best thing to do is for somebody to source a moderate degree of the content to independent references. Oh, if the article does remain I think it should be retitled "Tagès".-- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it looks like an advertisement more then anything, and tried removing some additional content to make it look more neutral, but don't know what else to do. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of the article in question, sorry for not having registered on wikipedia. Let me comment on a few key issues which were brought up in here: First, my initial complaint to Gwen Gale was indeed ill-tempered, and was rather rude. Please do understand that these words were written in the heat of the moment, the minute I saw that my work was deleted on grounds of what (in my opinion) are false accusations. Please accept my apology for this crudity, as there was no intention to hurt her feelings or discredit her.

Secondly, I see that some sections were removed under the claim of "advertisement" (edited by JasonHockeyGuy), let me stress this once more: I have nothing to do with the vendor of TAGES. Nothing. I merely wrote an article about their product. The removed sections contain material/quotes which is/are well-established (documented on CDFreaks.com). Additionally, would writing about a breach of a system amount to advertising? I fail to understand the logic behind this, *there was no advertising going on*.

Despite all this, wikipedia shows some of its two faced nature on other grounds, where there is mistreatment for other violations. Wikipedia forbids copyright infringement - we all know this. Now, check the SafeDisc article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safedisc): " UnSafeDisc circumvents and decrypts SafeDisc encrypted files by opening the ICD file format, decrypting it, and converting it to an EXE file. However each program requires a specific patch to enable full functionality.". Many articles on wikipedia link to tools or tutorials the main purpose of which is circumventing copy control measures (and thus, are illegal in various jurisdictions), yet no one erases them or modifies them - and I think we all know why. As I said, there seem to be an anti-DRM bias on this web site, judging by the vast majority of the DRM-related articles.

Respectfully yours.

Keep --SkyWalker (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:36, 8 June 2008 (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.