Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuters messaging


 * 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 keep - brenneman (t) (c)  06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reuters messaging
Advertising. While this is an extremely well crafted article, it is written in a highly promotional style about a commercial software product, and appears to have been written and uploaded by a member of the Reuters communications staff (see http://www.techforum.com/sf2005/ for a reference to Eran Barak). Tim Pierce 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd stick an NPOV tag on it. As you say, the article itself is not bad, although totally biased. I don't think there's any need to be dogmatic about the author being self-interested. We can edit out any bias he's introduced. I might even work on the article myself. Soo 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep good article on this product. I don't think it needs a tag. -- JJay 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't really mind either way, but do you really think User experience is a simple, cost-effective approach to improving business communication workflow within buy-side and sell-side organisations. is neutral? It reads like an advert. - FrancisTyers 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It reads like an advert and it means nothing. Amazing how many adverts are complete gibberish and nonsense! 131.111.8.100 02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes good sense to me and really no worse than most of the articles here. -- JJay 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added a NPOV tag as it is arguable whether or not things are 'simple', 'cost-effective', etc. These are opinions based on the product and there is no evidence to show that this is an accepted opinion amongst users. --Phanton 04:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as some work is done. -- WB 02:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 90K Google hits says keep to me. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue is to do with NPOV and not so much whether or not this software is noteable. --Phanton 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've reworked it. Fagstein 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's nothing about being written by a Reuters' employee -- if so -- that disqualifies it from inclusion.  That being said, there are entries for AIM, ICQ, Microsoft Windows, Quickbooks and any number of commercial programs.  RGTraynor 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it doesn't seem too bad now. Although I'm not sure about the "secure" in the first sentence. It is notable. Dan 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I removed 2 references to "secure", including the one you mentioned. See my comment below in reference to ViolinGirl for more details. --Phanton 06:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as rewritten. Movementarian 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's fine now. NeoJustin 23:29, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks nice now. I even like the "secure" sentence. Some, such as Windows Messenger, from what I've heard, are not.-- Violin  G  irl ♪ 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The word "secure" as used in the context of the article is a point of view much like Oracle Corporation claiming their products are 'unbreakable'. If you want more information on this, check the "Can't break it, can't break in" section of the Oracle Corporation article. --Phanton 06:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as rewritten by Fagstein. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Oliver Keenan 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. rather than have nominated this article for VfD, Tim should have simply copyedited it. Kingturtle 06:11, 8 January 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.