Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy Studio

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Studio

I'm not really seeing any sources on this; googling "Spy Studio" or "SpyStudio" turns up mostly download/review sites and press releases, neither of which can be considered reliable sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete void of notability and reliable sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Vassyana 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just some NN freeware. andy 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks as most people here only want publicity for the big companies. If you're not Google or Microsoft you cannot have your product here. It's the opposite of the ideology of Wikipedia. SpyStudio is a product that is improving a lot, and we develop lacking of resources. I don't understand why this kind of Wikipedia 'Police' think that Wikipedia is their property.

It's not a value judgement, simply an issue of notability. Please read WP:NOTE. andy 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an advertising tool to BUILD notability; it is an encyclopedia of what has already been deemed notable, usually determined by the item's mention in third-party sources. Hundreds of books, magazines, websites, etc. have discussed the Google and Microsoft companies; that's why they're included. Incidentally, as with a lot of small companies that think they can build publicity with a Wikipedia article, the Spy Studio article isn't linked from any other articles and it's not in any categories, so the only way someone could find the article is if they already knew it existed, in which case they could just as easily search Google for the official website. Propaniac 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All you guys doesn't know a bit about reverse engineering just are Vigilantes and Ignorance Dictatorships. The tool was released for free after months of hard work and most in the reverse engineering community will share our thoughts about their usefulness. Since you didn't understand anything about this stuff, you use the notability concept to cover your lack of knowledge in this subject. With this behaviour you only remove visibility to people who needs this kind of tools (and there are not many). And to finish the discussion I'll give you a reliable source naming our site, the Tuts4You site for reverse engineering.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianwain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Making personal attacks does not help your case. Furthermore, it does not take knowledge of a subject to see that the article does not reference any external sites to prove notability, it just takes a pair of eyes. And the link you added doesn't really provide any information; the 'description' is copied straight from www.nektra.com/products/spystudio/features.php and www.nektra.com/products/spystudio/, so that doesn't really count. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You need knowledge to know the value of a new tool, if you have not that knowledge you can ask somebody who has to judge. I have give you a reliable community site where is the tool named. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianwain (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment And the site does not have any information about it, except for maybe in the forums, which are not reliable sources. And the usefulness or 'value' of Spy Studio is not what is up for debate here, it is whether there are enough third-party sources to make it notable. A site that simply copied and pasted from the Nektra site doesn't exactly qualify as third-party in this instance. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Download the software and try it, nothing more simple. And the addition in Tust4You is from the owner of the site and not a post from us.
      - Comment It's still copied, so the original author is from Nektra. And I don't get what downloading the software and trying it would accomplish exactly... does it contain links to sources? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the head of the Ignorance Dictatorship, I wish to delete this article without principle or knoweldge of the subject matter. But seriously, the same community that wrote articles on Non-linear dynamics and quantum mechanics surely understands a product specializing in reverse engineering. This article does not cite any reliable sources. The one mentioned above was copied off of another site. Unless other sources are produced, notability is not asserted. --Cyrus Andiron 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pampers Wipes are more notable. [1]Qworty 20:41, 9 May 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.