Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisco Network Analysis Module


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cisco Network Analysis Module

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a networking product which has no notability, only sources are from Cisco's own website, also the majority of content reads like an advert. QueenCake (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really frustrating to see the discussion on this issue. If you plan to delete a product that has 6000 customers and nearly $60m of annual revenue, then a lot of products listings on Wikipedia should be removed. There are a number of non Cisco originated articles on this product - here are a few:


 * | Network Computing
 * | CNET

Now - as I had mentioned before, if you think there is advertising related content, I am more than happy to try to fix it. Ash1932 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is this advertising, but it makes no attempt to show historical or technical importance, and this software with "6000 customers" is only going to be of interest to a small number of people.  Yes, there are many other software articles that ought to be deleted as well.  In the fullness of time, we may get around to them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Either the admins are not reading the article, or I am doing a real poor job in explaining the concept. First, this is *not* a software - it is a hardware based offering and has added on a virtual platform recently. Second, this is not a product that you would use in your home - it is used by large enterprises and service providers globally. Finally, your reference to "6000 customers" is in poor spirit - if you have not heard about it, is exactly why I put in the article. This product has been around since 2000 and is the only integrated service management offering by Cisco. Can you please tell me which exact statement in the article is advertising? I took great pains to make it factual. I am happy to change it further. You have a valid point on historical references - and I will dig up historical information and post that here.

However, this auto-reply of "Delete" without even understanding the article reflects very poorly on the admins. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia of "Educating someone" ? Ash1932 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

i'm sure this deserves a sentence somewhere but we don't need an article on it. get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Delete I cant find independent significant coverage of this Power.corrupts (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2009 (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.