Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InLoox


 * 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   keep. NW ( Talk ) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

InLoox

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable software product. My searches have yielded no independent coverage. Article appears to be well-cited, but closer inspection reveals all sources are either self-published, insignificant, or does not even mention InLoox. Haakon (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] undefined — Per above. ℳøℕø 01:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant independent coverage by CNET, Swiss IT Magazine, and PMaktuell magazine:, (translation), (translation). — Rankiri (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. First of all: I'm employed at the manufacturer of InLoox. I'm not here to argue for one side, but feel the need to clarify on the issue. Decide for yourself. There is notable independent coverage for InLoox, besides the articles posted by Rankiri, e.g. in PC Magazin and Office 2007 für Chefs, Swiss IT Magazine, Digital Engineering Magazin, Computerwelt, IT& Production and Kommune21. However, the coverage is predomiatley in German language. Personally, I cannot agree on Ron Ritzman's statement that there is "no independent coverage". The fact that InLoox is not mentioned in all of the references has two reasons: 1. Some of the articles (from Windows IT Pro and TechRepublic) are only there to substantiate the faith and future of Exchange public folders, as stated in the article ("Microsoft’s announcements of moving away from Exchange public folders might have been be the cause for switching to SQL."). 2. In the Impulse article, InLoox was in fact mentioned, but only in the PDF version of the article but not in the HTML version, which was used in Wikipedia earlier. Maybe the editor was afraid of possible copyright infringements and referenced the HTML version only. This may have caused the impression that InLoox was not mentioned at all in the article. In fact, this was not the case. The same holds true for the c't article. In the print version there is independent coverage, the web version suggests a "self-published" directory entry, which is not the case. If you want, I can provide you with a scan of the original article. However, we cannot use it for the web because of copyright issues. --Iqmedialab (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability seems restricted to German-speaking communities, but besides the articles found by Rankiri, there's also some book coverage, also in German. Pcap ping  17:24, 28 April 2010 (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.