Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/HyperBac: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:14, 3 July 2006 editAfuller77 (talk | contribs)1 edit →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:12, 16 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(27 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
⚫ This is probably advertising. Google gives a whopping , and a lot of those seem to be spamming forums, press releases, or submissions by the company rep. The on their website is little help. ] ] 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
⚫ I don't consider this spam nor do I consider it advertising. This is a new and unique product from a small, independent Australian software vendor which is not hurting anyone. I can name about 100 other articles for deletions from multi-national, billion dollar software companies which are allowed to stay, why pick on these guys? '''Strong Keep''' for me. --] 04:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' all ]. ]<sup><font color="darkblue">]</font></sup> 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC) The result of the debate was '''delete'''. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

⚫ ===]===
⚫ This is probably advertising. Google gives a whopping , and a lot of those seem to be spamming forums, press releases, or submissions by the company rep. The on their website is little help. ] ] 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Also fails ]'s section on products.--] ] 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

⚫ * I don't consider this spam nor do I consider it advertising. This is a new and unique product from a small, independent Australian software vendor which is not hurting anyone. I can name about 100 other articles for deletions from multi-national, billion dollar software companies which are allowed to stay, why pick on these guys? '''Strong Keep''' for me. --] 04:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:*<small>user's .--] ] 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete''' all ]. ]] 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' nn software/advertising --] 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' nn software/advertising --] 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', fails ]. --''']''' <small>]</small> 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', fails ]. --''']''' <small>]</small> 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - ] 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - ] 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I don't have much interest in "compressed disk based backup software for Oracle 9i and 10g", but I suspect that sort of thing ''does'' belong in an encyclopedia. After a bit of editing, it's no longer spam. Perhaps we could refocus the discussion about whether the subject is notable or not. --] 04:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', product released a month ago with no press or industry coverage that I could find other than company submitted blubs and spam. Their very simple site has exactly one press release and one "customer success" story. Claims are unverifiable; just seems to be another random backup solution for 9i/10g. ] ] 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Can't find any references to this company in an Australia New Zealand database. Couldn't find much in the way of verifiable material from reliable third party sources either for this software. ] 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete''' for failing ] --] <sup>(])</sup> 07:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' not too spammish, has ] —] 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' using your own young proposed guideline as a reason for keeping an article is a bit bizarre... ] 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::How else is it going to catch on? (And another reason was given also) —] 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - The product seems to cover a valid topic area. Isn't specifically offensive in my case. Obviously a start up, but I suspect the topic is worth consideration <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:'''Comment'''This was this users first edit ] 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' no evidence that they pass ] ] 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Even if it didn't fail WP:SPAM, it would surely fail WP:CORP with flying colors (if colors can fly due to failure). -- ] 11:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom as it fails WP:CORP. --] 12:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' for its failure to muste WP:CORP. --] 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom ] 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom -- ] 00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' for multiple reasons: ], ], not verifiable by reliable (third party) sources; non-notable product. --] 06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Compress & encryption of backups aren't unusual, and neither are database system add-on products. No evidence of popularity either. Fails all ]. If there was an article for the company, it could have been merged there. --] ] 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] (]) 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' ] 05:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 19:12, 16 May 2022

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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

HyperBac

This is probably advertising. Google gives a whopping 29 unique results, and a lot of those seem to be spamming forums, press releases, or submissions by the company rep. The news coverage on their website is little help. Chaser T 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Also fails WP:CORP's section on products.--Chaser T 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't consider this spam nor do I consider it advertising. This is a new and unique product from a small, independent Australian software vendor which is not hurting anyone. I can name about 100 other articles for deletions from multi-national, billion dollar software companies which are allowed to stay, why pick on these guys? Strong Keep for me. --Afuller77 04:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment using your own young proposed guideline as a reason for keeping an article is a bit bizarre... Fram 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How else is it going to catch on? (And another reason was given also) —Pengo 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The product seems to cover a valid topic area. Isn't specifically offensive in my case. Obviously a start up, but I suspect the topic is worth consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.187.132 (talk • contribs)
CommentThis was this users first edit Fram 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
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.