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 as yet another software ad. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PrivacyView[edit]

does not meet notability guidelines for companies. Inverviewing with tucows, being a finalist in a local technology award show, does not make a company notable, and it has no other secondary sources establishing notability to the privacy community or the Internet community at large. Article itself is spammy, and it's been a whole year, and the creator has shown little interest in asserting his software's notability, much less improving the article on the whole. For an Internet software company, the most remarkable aspect of the company is the lack of comment. I think more than a podcast is needed to make this article look like anything other than a web directory listing. Napsterbater (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above comments Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are references to the article but they aren't primary sources. Footnote #5 doesn't mention this company. However, it appears to be notable--a google search turned many references to this company's products. [1] It looks like a legitimate software company which should resolve any verifiability issues. But...the User who created the article may have some connection to the company judging from his talk page:[2] Its a hard call. I wonder if there is a conflict of interest here. Artene50 (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - not a particularly notably topic, however this article is intriguing. It looks at some controversy surrounding PrivacyView receiving funding when it is producing software touted as being of value on the pornography industry. I'm not sure if the controversy makes it sufficiently notable to keep, but it might be worth considering. Either way, I haven't had the chance to add the information to the article yet, but if it survives AfD (or at least is still around when I get some time to spare) I'll do so. - Bilby (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2008 (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.