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. W.marsh 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emcads[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. The article is not written in the proper tone, but I cannot determine the notability of the product based on the available information. Chick Bowen 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google query returns under 1000 items with top items related to the trademark registration, marketing materials and pages from the developers website(s). The product appears not to have any active userbase and the technology itself has not seen any peer reviews at the moment. Therefore, formally, the article does not satisfy the very basic notability guideline, which is a significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Alex Pankratov 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex thanks for your remarks, I hope I will get a chance to change the "first attempt" of this document to avoid removal. It has now been greatly edited by one of the guys who created the patent. You are right the technology and hence the subject is very new. How old does a subject have to be before it can be referenced in an encyclopedia? A topic should be deemed notable by definition not simply by association. If someone found a cure for cancer using an unknown compound. Is that compound notable? Do we ignore it because no one has heard of it? Ron Wilkins 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, it merely records well established notable facts. So the answer to your last question is YES. The cancer cure compound will not likely be included in Wikipedia until it gets enough publicity, accumulates some peer reviews and/or perhaps stirs a notable controversy. In any case, it won't make it to Wikipedia until it becomes notable.

I have no principle objections to keeping Emcads article, but it needs to be (further) trimmed down to one or two sections. In its current state it does not have accurate and factual summary, it is heavy on unimportant details, it is hard to follow. It also implies the alleged notability of its authors (e.g. are they notable for something else aside from "conceiving the technology") and it very heavy on "tm" usage. The "tm" is not commonly used in Wikipedia (if ever), have a look for example at Skype entry.

The article still reads like an ad/marketing material, i.e. something that _you_ as a developer would like to tell the readers. This introduces natural POV, which is considered one of the greatest Wikipedia's no-nos. The article must be told from neutral point of view, and for that it needs to be edited by people experienced, but not directly affiliated with the subject matter. And, as you can probably already see, these people won't exist if the subject matter is not notable. Therefore the notability is a natural requirement for producing POV-free articles.

The best bet at the moment in my opinion is to reduce the article to Stub, let your technology/product mature and the proper article will follow naturally. Otherwise there is a very good chance it will get deleted. Alex Pankratov 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apart of missing formal notability problems the text is not written in encyclopedic style (overview of a topic in a broader context). I doub't it could be rewritten that way. Pavel Vozenilek 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete, i.e. convert to Stub or delete if it stays in its present form. See my remark above. Alex Pankratov 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking multiple non-trivial reliable sources at present; agree it needs a rewrite if it stays. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken and unterstood. I will need a little time to greatly reduce the content. Thank you all for the pointers to skype and OpenVPN. Ron Wilkins 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is too obviously written as an ad, mostly by a single user, (Rocketron5), who is no doubt personally involved (POV). It seems such user is trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of his product, which is not acceptable. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, please refrain from personal attacks. Alex Pankratov 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Apologies Ron Wilkins

Still working on the contents of the emcads document. Looking at pointers. Ron Wilkins

Delete on grounds that this article is a very bad case of Spam. --Gavin Collins 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a simple article now which is "what it is" and "what it does" plus a little of "how it does it". Only brief mention of the company as to who owns the technology and the product it is used for. I'm not clear how this article can be termed spam as it is not trying to sell you anything. Rocketron5 17:52, 12 June 2007 (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.