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The result was Withdrawn. For now. Web reviews of this software do exist. The article will be tagged accordingly. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hackvertor[edit]

Hackvertor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. The article initially stated that it had been created to make up for a lack of documentation on Hackvertor, a statement that has been removed along with the prod notice. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning but c'mon I thought the idea of wikipedia was to collaborate on topics. Hackvertor contains documentation but it is a open source project I can't dedicate huge chunks of time, I was hoping to get Hackvertor users to help me improve the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackvertor (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, since Wikipedia requires that all of its contents be verifiable, and that it be about notable subjects, you should wait for the lacking documentation to exist elsewhere before starting a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hackvertor is notable within the security community, it doesn't make the news because I don't have a marketing budget as it is open source. That last sentence made no sense I'm confused. comment added by Hackvertor (talk • contribs)

Notable means it makes the news without you shelling out even a penny for marketing. Notable means it is talked about without you commissioning it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article provide interesting and relevant information on this freeware : its origin, its purpose, how it can be used. Granted there is a lot to do on the styling, but it still provides informations which I think has its place on Wikipedia, maybe you could consider removing this Afd and instead use a styling notice. Also note that even if not very well known, this freeware has had its reviews on the web ([1]) which make it notable to more than the author himself. Olivier Jaquemet (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2009 (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.