Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmniPeek


 * 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. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OmniPeek
Advertising copy for non-notable product. Steven Fisher 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: See also EtherPeek & AiroPeek, more advertising copy for related products. -- Steven Fisher 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as marketing bull#&%! - Richardcavell 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years.  2) Please define advertising.  As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising and "marketing bull...".  Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template?  In fact, you could pretty much replace Wireshark with OmniPeek in that entry -- would that be better?  3)  This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition.  Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. On the other hand, you are a developer of OmniPeek (see email address at mahbound's talk page). -- Steven Fisher 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Reads simply as a pure advertisement. Hardly notable.--Auger Martel 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising copy. -- Steven Fisher 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to OmniPeek.  Have I tried to hide my connection?  No.  I used my real name and e-mail.  See my user info for direct e-mail.  Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with?  (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: )  2)  Apologies are in order:  I assumed  was the same Steven Fisher.  Now I see that his first name is not the same.  I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher.  3)  I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording?  Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue?  As for being notable, how does one prove notability?  Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek -, 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep I have to agree strongly that this is inline with Wireshark's entry. I also do not consider a developer attempting to document the history and evolution of its products, which it appears is the intent of Wireshark as well, to be considered advertising.  Does anyone recall Wireshark's entry when it first appeared?  I am sure it is similar to OmniPeek's, which given the chance to evolve, would be supplemented by end-users and take on the community feel I believe was intended. Perhaps adapting to a format inline with Wiresharks would be more acceptable.Josh Gluck 11:18, 19 June 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.