Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrisoft WANGUARD
- 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Andrisoft WANGUARD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be more notable than the first time it was deleted Jac16888 Talk 21:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: I am not finding anything stronger than PR and occasional blog mentions of this product. Its strongest ground appears to be that it is covered in a report by a firm called Infonetics Research. That is paywalled but in the absence of seeing the depth of coverage, inclusion in a product comparison is not enough to establish notability in itself. This is clearly a specialist product, so happy to revise if anyone can locate strong coverage. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (T • E) 10:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The only independent ref is a paper from a 'market research and consulting firm' which would not typically meet RS requirements. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for the following counterarguments: "Infonetics Research is not known or enough for the RS requirements" - To my knowledge that's the only company that does global and independent surveys of DDoS mitigation solutions like this one. Reports from Infonetics are listed on Wikipedia articles for Cisco Systems - worldwide leader in networking, Openet, Jasomi Networks etc. "Infonetics report is paywalled" counterargument: Andrisoft is listed in the SYNOPSIS, but that report is freely available at link. "Unclear notability" counterargument: The product was presented at security conferences and expos: Infosecurity Europe link, AEGIS link, few other academic conferences. There are less than 10 companies in the world that offer this kind of product, and this one is known by network security professionals. Vborcan (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- The freely available report you've linked makes no mention of WANGUARD, and Andrisoft is only mentioned incidentally at 2 points and in a graph. Without other independent refs, this is not sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- In this case mentioning the company equals mentioning the product because this company develops a single product. Yes it's only a mention for a small global market share, but consider that the mention was made by an independent market research company. It's better to list as refs payed press articles like most of the vendors listed on Comparison of network monitoring systems have ? Unfortunately there is no independent press that covers network security software used for DDoS mitigation. Vborcan (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are missing bits about significant coverage. The fact that articles about "most of the vendors listed on Comparison of network monitoring systems" should also be deleted is irrelevant to this particular discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- What's in other articles is indeed irrelevant, sorry for that. I hope at least the customer list can be used to assess significant coverage. Vborcan (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Quick test: can you guess the name of the software by the customer list? If not, it does not really cover it at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- What's in other articles is indeed irrelevant, sorry for that. I hope at least the customer list can be used to assess significant coverage. Vborcan (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are missing bits about significant coverage. The fact that articles about "most of the vendors listed on Comparison of network monitoring systems" should also be deleted is irrelevant to this particular discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- In this case mentioning the company equals mentioning the product because this company develops a single product. Yes it's only a mention for a small global market share, but consider that the mention was made by an independent market research company. It's better to list as refs payed press articles like most of the vendors listed on Comparison of network monitoring systems have ? Unfortunately there is no independent press that covers network security software used for DDoS mitigation. Vborcan (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- The freely available report you've linked makes no mention of WANGUARD, and Andrisoft is only mentioned incidentally at 2 points and in a graph. Without other independent refs, this is not sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.