Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanitizer

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 speedy delete. Jikaoli Kol and I agree that it was spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xanitizer (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)

Non-notable software, I can't seem to find any in depth third party reliable sources talking about this software. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tool was released 2 months ago, so there are not yet any third party sources. Our CEO is an active member of the OWASP chapter here in Germany and we hope to get listed as recommended tool on the OWASP page as soon as possible. In my opinion, the article does not contain any marketing content. Instead it covers technical aspects. Of cource, if there are any other articles and papers about the tool I will add them to the sources. --NWenzel (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am new as Wikipedia editor, but please let me understand this: there is AfD discussion and the possibility to contest the nomination for deletion. I've written to both. And the article is still deleted without any response. So what sense makes this discussion... -- NWenzel (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies NWenzel, I should have changed the deletion log entry to reflect the speedy deletion tag (which had in fact been applied two minutes before the AfD tag). Kindly have the decency to wait until a) your product becomes notable and b) someone with no COI writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 February 2016 (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.