Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piga Software


 * 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. Comments by persons believed to be affiliated with this corporation have been disregarded as non-objective. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  10:46, Dec. 25, 2005

Piga Software
NN company. Was speedy, but bringing here for a vote. Recommend delete Jamie 05:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: The youngster making the software and the page is talented, but the "company" and website are non-notable. It is unfortunate in some cases, but we need to try to maintain Wikipedia standards. Hu 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is only a description of a free software site and not Vanity. Comrade Hamish Wilson 18:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: The vote to keep above is by the author of the page and the owner of the site. Hu 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This one isn't... On a more serious note I don't think that this article should be deleted but I understand the claim of being not notable. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You haven't indicated any positive reason to keep this article and you haven't addressed the self-promotion. Hu 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Self promotion and not notable. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not Wiki policy and therefor a redundent argument. The article needs cleaning up substantially though, as there are several grammatical and spelling errors contained within it. Jcuk 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, notability is an important developing policy at Wikipedia for products: Notability (companies and corporations).  Yes, it is not quite "policy" yet, but the ball is in your court:  You need to explain why a non-notable download site should be kept, which you haven't.  You haven't claimed any positive reason for keeping the article (a double negative is not sufficient).  You will notice that in the developing policy notability is the critical issue for products and services:  Criteria for products and services:  A product or service is notable.  If you continue reading, you will find that this site doesn't come close to meeting any of the criteria.  Further, you haven't addressed the issue of using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Hu 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability distinguishes interesting articles from self interested articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep G.W 11:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The above vote to keep by Graham Wilson (G.W.) is by the other party in the site (undoubtedly a family member due to the same family name as Hamish Wilson), so it works out to be more self-promotion.


 * Delete Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not yahoo or google, not every software site needs an article. --Dtremenak 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant vanity article. On google you get eight real hits most of which are to wikipedia. Nothing notable, and self-aggrandizement is telling.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, vanity article for a nn company --Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 25 December 2005 (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.