Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue Amoeba


 * 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, but source heavily and cleanup. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Amoeba

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Wackymacs 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - article reads very much like an advertisement or an "about us" page, but setting aside those problems, the company doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. I found a few minor press mentions through Google News but nothing non-trivial or by a reliable source. Jayden54 13:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a quick search turns of numerous references, including reviews such as http://playlistmag.com/reviews/2005/03/airfoil/index.php ; appears to be a venerable (by software standards) and widely used application with plenty of readily-available sources. Tarinth 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK so you found 1 product review - but that doesn't mean the company is notable, see WP:CORP (that review would mean the product is notable, not the company). — Wackymacs 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:CORP is too strict. Foobaz&middot;o&lt; 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your vote doesn't count - "too strict" isn't a valid reason. Please see WP:V as well, which this article fails to pass. — Wackymacs 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The hell it isn't valid. The guideline excludes just about anything that isn't a publically-traded megacorporation. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the admin judging this deletion can decide whether or not my vote counts. Please note that WP:CORP is a guideline and not a policy. Also consider that the court systems of many countries allow defendants to challenge the validity of the law under which they are being prosecuted, so that cases can drive the evolution of law. Foobaz&middot;o&lt; 00:10, 5 January 2007 (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.