493:
people have better things to do than to write about products, unless they get paid for it but then it's not an objective source, is it? 2. it's a niche so not everyone online will OPENLY talk about it 3. you will find plenty of references to the product online. We don't pay magazine editors like other companies do to promote the product. If you wanted to be strict about the notability requirement you would have to remove almost all businesses and products from wikipedia
605:
Further down it says "General Motors Co. don't have to explain to the outside world what they make". Hello? Ask people in Africa and Europe if they know GE, I bet you won't find many. So what makes something notable to you doesn't necessarily apply to others. If you knew anything about our industry you wouldn't be questioning the notability of BackupChain.
451:- Well, his point was that if a lot of people use it regularly, it should be notable. Which is a reasonable concept. However, contacting FasNeuron for their number of users should be considered as a primary source, or perhaps original research. There should be reliable, secondary sources saying that there are 30,000 users. ---
653:, and even know the difference between them. What am I doing wrong? And most of people I know also know these brands, and also don't know yours. How do you think, is it because I'm hired by your opponents to clear their minds every evening, or simply because your product isn't notable? Actually you replied yourself: "
609:
In-depth reviews are usually written by bloggers who have been hired to publish whatever the company wants to have presented to the public. These "in-depth" reviews neither add to notability nor do they demonstrate public interest in the product. You can spend $ 1M and get a whole bunch of magazines
492:
First of all, if some Wiki users are unaware of the product, they can't nominate the page for deletion just like that. If there's doubt you need to contact people in the industry to verify the notability of the product. The unavailability of this information at this point has several reasons: 1.
604:
you referenced is an opinion that lacks scientific and academic background. The statement "being of interest to the general public is what counts for notability, though" is non-sense. The general public doesn't give a damn about most of what you read in
Knowledge. It's all niche to some point.
261:
Other free products may have a lot of references online because they are free. But that itself doesn't make the product notable. Just because some editors are familiar with a product, doesn't necessary mean the general public is, too.
159:
408:
this software is in widespread use in the virtualization business with over 30,000 users to date. You may contact FastNeuron Inc. if you are in doubt of the notability of this software.
120:
600:
To keep it short for you: I am not going to spend the entire evening explaining to you the significance of the word notable. Notable means 'worthy of notice' and the section
153:
529:
525:
211:
469:
I see nothing valid in this concept. To be included in
Knowledge, any piece of software, regardless of its user base, has to meet to at least the requirements of
558:
The thing is that the publication is not open to the public you need to pay for it. This publication is read by pretty much everyone in the business
509:
419:
388:
321:
273:
554:
Here is a two year old example from 2010, the product was included in DCIG's buyer's guide which is a leading publication in this business
610:
write about you. Does it mean anyone cares? I suspect you have been hired by a competitor to instigate such claims against the product.
460:
423:
392:
325:
277:
93:
88:
17:
97:
174:
141:
80:
524:. Though I have to agree that many businesses and products should be removed from Knowledge, and you may check the
683:
615:
563:
521:
505:
415:
384:
317:
269:
40:
555:
135:
611:
559:
501:
456:
411:
380:
313:
265:
679:
577:
131:
36:
666:
638:
619:
593:
567:
541:
513:
482:
464:
443:
369:
349:
302:
253:
226:
203:
62:
84:
497:
427:
396:
329:
281:
222:
601:
573:
181:
167:
662:
589:
537:
478:
439:
345:
337:
298:
76:
68:
452:
237:- If the software every becomes widely used then maybe it would warrant an article similar to
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
678:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
650:
629:
plenty of sources out there irregardless of whether people in Africa and Europe know of it.
362:
218:
54:
147:
646:
634:
199:
658:
585:
533:
474:
470:
435:
341:
294:
250:
114:
191:
556:
http://dcigbuyersguides.com/2011-virtual-server-backup-software-buyers-guide/
630:
195:
434:
And so what? How do the over 30,000 users help establishing notability? —
238:
580:
doesn't help much. And still there should be significant in-depth review
520:
Where did you get the idea? The due process of deletion is described in
246:
242:
377:
There's plenty of indication out there, what you are talking about?.
625:
Using
General Motors as an example is a bad decision because there
473:, which is explicitly stated to be a bare minimal requirement. —
672:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
190:
I found nothing that shows that this software is notable. Fails
657:
you wouldn't be questioning the notability of BackupChain." —
430:
comment was added at 16:06, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
399:
comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
332:
comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
284:
comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
602:
WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough
574:
WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough
110:
106:
102:
166:
336:
On my research. And on your research that we have at
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
686:). No further edits should be made to this page.
241:, but right now it seems pretty non-notable. --
530:list of Business-related deletion discussions
526:list of Software-related deletion discussions
212:list of Software-related deletion discussions
180:
8:
210:Note: This debate has been included in the
209:
7:
426:outside this topic. The preceding
395:outside this topic. The preceding
361:- No indication of notability. --
328:outside this topic. The preceding
293:: no indications of notability. —
280:outside this topic. The preceding
24:
645:I'm from Europe and I know both
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
667:22:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
639:22:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
620:22:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
594:22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
568:22:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
542:21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
514:21:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
483:21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
465:21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
444:16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
370:09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
350:22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
303:09:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
254:06:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
227:04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
204:01:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
63:15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
703:
310:based on what research?.
675:Please do not modify it.
572:To keep it shorter: see
32:Please do not modify it.
584:to have this kept. —
424:few or no other edits
393:few or no other edits
326:few or no other edits
278:few or no other edits
659:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
586:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
534:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
475:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
436:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
342:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
295:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
578:DCIG Buyer's Guide
48:The result was
517:
500:comment added by
431:
400:
333:
285:
249:
229:
215:
694:
677:
532:for progress. —
516:
494:
412:Papadopoulossav
409:
378:
367:
311:
263:
245:
216:
185:
184:
170:
118:
100:
59:
34:
702:
701:
697:
696:
695:
693:
692:
691:
690:
684:deletion review
673:
612:Papadopoulossav
560:Papadopoulossav
522:deletion policy
502:Papadopoulossav
495:
381:Papadopoulossav
363:
314:Papadopoulossav
266:Papadopoulossav
127:
91:
75:
72:
61:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
700:
698:
689:
688:
669:
647:General Motors
642:
641:
607:
606:
598:
597:
596:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
487:
486:
485:
403:
402:
401:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
288:
287:
286:
231:
230:
188:
187:
124:
71:
66:
53:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
699:
687:
685:
681:
676:
670:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
491:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
407:
404:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
376:
373:
372:
371:
368:
366:
360:
357:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
334:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
309:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
260:
257:
256:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
213:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
60:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
674:
671:
654:
626:
608:
581:
496:— Preceding
489:
453:Michaelzeng7
448:
405:
374:
364:
358:
307:
290:
258:
234:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
56:
49:
47:
31:
28:
422:) has made
391:) has made
338:BackupChain
324:) has made
276:) has made
235:Weak Delete
154:free images
77:BackupChain
69:BackupChain
365:Joaquin008
219:Tom Morris
680:talk page
247:(User:90)
50:Speedy G7
37:talk page
682:or in a
528:and the
510:contribs
498:unsigned
461:contribs
428:unsigned
420:contribs
397:unsigned
389:contribs
330:unsigned
322:contribs
282:unsigned
274:contribs
239:BackupPC
121:View log
39:or in a
576:on why
490:Comment
449:Comment
375:Comment
308:Comment
259:Comment
160:WP refs
148:scholar
94:protect
89:history
471:WP:GNG
359:Delete
291:Delete
251:(talk)
243:Andrew
132:Google
98:delete
175:JSTOR
136:books
115:views
107:watch
103:links
57:nancy
16:<
663:talk
649:and
635:talk
631:SL93
616:talk
590:talk
564:talk
538:talk
506:talk
479:talk
457:talk
440:talk
416:talk
406:KEEP
385:talk
346:talk
340:. —
318:talk
299:talk
270:talk
223:talk
200:talk
196:SL93
192:WP:N
168:FENS
142:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
182:TWL
119:– (
665:)
655:If
651:GE
637:)
627:is
618:)
592:)
566:)
540:)
512:)
508:•
481:)
463:)
459:-
442:)
418:•
410:—
387:•
379:—
348:)
320:•
312:—
301:)
272:•
264:—
225:)
214:.
202:)
194:.
162:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
52:.
661:(
633:(
614:(
588:(
582:s
562:(
536:(
504:(
477:(
455:(
438:(
414:(
383:(
344:(
316:(
297:(
268:(
221:(
217:—
198:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.