Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansweeper

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 keep. A WP:HEY by Djm-leighpark has met GNG, which was upheld after a re-list. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lansweeper

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First off - I just reverted this article to an older, shorter (and less promotional) version. This is how it looked as I found it. The only independent references were a series of broken links to WindowsNetworking.com (a blog) to source a series of nonnotable yearly awards given by the blog to this software. Everything else was from the company's own site or from a reposted press release. I've done some looking for additional sources, and I've mostly found more press releases and listings in indiscriminate software directories. Google scholar turns up a couple of hits, but they are brief mentions - for example just the name in a list of low cost software alternatives. I don't believe this topic meets either WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and therefore this article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: (See revised !vote below)Neutral:keep: deliberate vandalisation of article by nom. I currently don't have time to fix. If you have a negative COI don't muck about with it before presentation here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to address the reason for the nomination, which is the lack of reliable sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might have tried to rescue this but there's simply too much vandalism going on and other smuck. And this is meant to be a security product. I'm going to neutral until people with COI start behaving nicely. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First off - I just reverted this article to a newer, longer (and more informational) version. Secondly, I've adjusted the number of citations to the company's website and added more independent references. While doing so this also countering the deletion reason given above. Ls.EsbenD (talk) — Ls.EsbenD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Blogs and reddit posts aren't independent references that actually help us. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and user-generated content can be a good source of information. Reliability is a diffirent question. Regardless, other reliable third-party source have been added. So, I don't see how your claim holds. Ls.EsbenD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is written like a documentation page. WP:NOTMANUAL. In fact, the article looks like a rehash of this page: [1]. Even assuming that reliable sources that prove the subject of article's impact could be found, everything written in this "article" so far needs to go. They are exactly what an encyclopedia does not want. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with MrOllie - (nsoftware & gng) — Ched (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There was a spate of undisclosed conflict of edit / paid editing on this article (at great inconvenience to the nom. I may add) which has been seemingly brought under control. I have also reworked the article to remove paid editing content. No doubt it may issues but undisclosed paid editing has been removed and it is not an unambigous advert as at Old revision of Lansweeper. A lifespan of 15 years and the appearance of CVEs on the mitre.org database are indicators of product significance. I think when additional references were introduced 22 October 2019 efforts to remove the article moved towards emphasing the coi/paid editing which is fair enough and perhaps I should have clocked it myself earlier. And while not ever reference satisifies WP:RS per WP:THREE I select initially the following as demonstrating both WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG:

Jacobi's PC World review from 2010, I like the fact he is saying Spiceworks is better in at least one aspect.[2].
Rux's Windows IT Pro(now ITPRO today) review from 2009. [3] ... I was nearly tempted to present Schulman's 2005 from the same magazine instead.
Evotec's Przemyslaw's review: [4].

So I believe we have a sold keep. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, seems like Djm-leighpark's rewrite and sources need to be reviewed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:GNG and also improved in other ways after Djm-leighpark's work. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (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.