Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentry Parental Controls


 * 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   no consensus. While a headcount leans towards deleting, I am conscious of Novicka's improvements. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentry Parental Controls

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was one of a series of spamvertisements masquerading as articles created by and  (sock report)). Restored following a report to Wikimedia UK but no evidence this was office action or anything else that would trump consensus(see the article talk page). I'll notify User:AlisonW of this discussion. No evidence it's notable, and being software produced by a company that has something to do with Drew Bledsoe doesn't give it notability. Thoughts?  TravellingCari  20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Redirect to (or merge with) Content-control software.   SIS   22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete only one source passes wp:rs, article is mainly spam. If it was better sourced, that could be fixed, but it isn't, so bye bye.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above, not really notable on it's own. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles creator now indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Delete Unnotable parental control software which establishes its notability only buy paying some host on the British version of The View money to promote it. Clear WP:COI.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ADVERT and non-notable and set redirect to Content-control software.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am confused about all the redirects. This isn't a common term, so redirect is not required.  If it is so common that a redirect was needed, then we would need to rethink the deleted.  I just can't agree with a redirect.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 11:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. A redirect it not needed. Struck that part of my posistion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While you do have a point there, I think it's sometimes good to use a redirect to help stave off future attempts at re-creation of a deleted article by demonstrating that the subject is more or less covered, but in a more general way than the deleted article. That being said, it wouldn't bother me at all if it was just deleted either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think its a major company in the field by now. One RS review already there--others need to be looked for. But if not notable we would not make a redirect in the case like this, for that would apply to any non-notable company  making a product, and amount to a directory. DGG (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are several companies named Sentry that might be, but this product just doesn't seem to have wp:rs type sources available when I really looked. If you can find others, I will be happy to change my opinion to keep.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added reference from Marketwire - mentions endorsement by Drew Bledsoe; also ref from Internet Watch Foundation. All add to notability. Novickas (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Also added refs from The Guardian (note: source is the newspaper's technology correspondent's blog ) and Liverpool Victoria. Novickas (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Notability (organizations and companies): If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I think this product's coverage, while not in-depth, by Reuters, Liverpool Victoria, The Guardian's technology correspondent, the South Wales Echo, the Internet Watch Foundation, and The Telegraph meets that standard. Novickas (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment both Marketwatch and the IWF ones appear to be regurgitation of press releases which don't meet RS guidelines and celeb endorsement is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. TravellingCari  04:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment The blog is no good either, even though it's from the Guardian, it's not an actual article, just a blog. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replies I can't cite WP policy on these 2 points, but the blog is published by the Guardian, since its author is a Guardian columnist. Not self-published. Also, the software is the primary product of a publicly-traded company . Novickas (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment a blog is still a blog and generally not subject to editorial oversight, which is the issue. Being the primary product of a company does not mean it's notable. There's no evidence the company is notable and if it isn't, the products despite being celeb endorsed aren't usally notable.  TravellingCari  21:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The guidance on blogs focuses on self-publication: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." It would be good if that page mentioned "blogs" published in reputable newspapers by their columnists, since it's a trend, but right now it only discusses self-published blogs. Novickas (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (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.