Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techinline Remote Desktop

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. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Techinline Remote Desktop

Nonnotable software product; almost no sources other than company's own site; added by a Techinline company representative, see here. Also seems promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable 3rd party references establishing notability, possibly spam for reasons above. Dialectric (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this article, and would like to state that I have followed the same format as the other remote access products mentioned on Wikipedia (i.e. Teamviewer, LogMeIn). The article is completely neutral and does not contain one word of advertising. Instead it is written to help users of our product learn more about the technology and security we use.
Furthermore, I have created links to the other products in our industry. We are a well recognized service in the remote desktop industry, and you can google "techinline" to see the 3rd party sources where we are mentioned. One of these is Lifehacker ([1]), where we are mentioned alongside LogMeIn.
If you allow the article to stay, I will be more than happy to eliminate all of the official sources and use only available 3rd party references. Furthermore, I am confident that our users will help contribute to this article in the future, thereby expanding the sources further.
Thank you and I look forward to a fair decision being made.Andrey4wiki (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pointing people to Google please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and add them to the article instead of links to your own corporate website. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mgm, thank you for the suggestion to add more credible references. I've added 2 more reliable 3rd party sources (which actually have their own articles on Wikipedia see: Softpedia). I've also removed 1 of the official website sources. This leaves only 2 official references out of the 8 in total. Please note that it would be difficult to find a Wikipedia post which does not use at least 1 official source, yet we have done our best to minimize this in our case. If anything else needs to be done, please let me know. I'm trying my best to put together an article which entirely meets the Wikipedia standards, and am willing to work on this further if needed.Andrey4wiki (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can find information practically about anything on Wikipedia these days, and this is the nice thing about it. If it is to become a "closed club" where only limited sources and globally recognized items are allowed, it would first defy the meaning of acting as an "encyclopedic" source, and would also hurt the continued expansion of Wikipedia to be a solid and easy to read source of information, for which I personally value it. Based on what I've seen, this service has been around for 3 years and has alright references to 3rd party sources.Timofey Rodin (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you haven't made any other edit in 18 months, I'll remind you that this is not a vote & we must make discussions within the policy and guidelines of WP. Welcome back --23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reviews that are possibly independent are all trivial. I'm surprised this wasn't speedied per WP:CSD#G11. I do see some improvement being made, but the product does not seem to be notable yet & there are obvious COI issues. --Karnesky (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (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.