Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syneto


 * 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   delete. Soft consensus that the sources lack notability. I will be happy to userify on request. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Syneto

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I could find no independent sources demonstrating notability, and there certainly are none in the article. Let's go through what's there, shall we?
 * Blind URL #1 is a press release.
 * Blind URL #2 is a press release.
 * Blind URL #3 is a product description on their distributor's site.
 * "Reference" #1 is a press release, the same as blind URL #1.
 * "Reference" #2 is a press release.
 * External link #1 is the company's official site.
 * External link #2 is the company's official site in Italian.
 * External link #3 is a press release, the same as blind URL #2.
 * External link #4 is a blog posting of a press release.
 * External link #5 is a product description from their distributor.
 * External link #6 is a product description from a technology consulting firm.
 * And external link #7 is a post from "Csabi's blog".

Can we agree that none of these are tantamount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and that the article should as a result be deleted? Biruitorul Talk 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article in question has been edited based on exhaustive research of similar articles and therefore adheres strongly to Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the principle of precedence in applicable, older articles such as Fortinet, SonicWALL, Untangle, Endian Firewall and others demonstrate a far wider lack of notability and independent sources. I would also like to point out that Biruitorul has proposed articles for deletion without sound reasoning in the past. It is customary Wikiquette to explain any edits or actions, not just impose your opinions on others. Biruitorul's discussion page bare witness to the many such abuses to common courtesy perpetrated over time. Also, Blind URL #1 is not a press release but rather a short history. To rest my case, I'm currently attempting to find some unbiased reviews of their products. In any event, I don't that any such unbiased resources will fix this, Biruitorul seems to thrive on these exhaustive polemical discussions starded for no other reason than personal gratification. I say Keep it, less we start encouraging summary deletions.```dragos040```      —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos040 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WAX: pointing to other similarly non-notable articles is not a valid argument for retaining this one. And please refrain from baseless insinuations about my record; the only thing I will say is that all the deletion discussions I initiated in recent months resulted in deletion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc.), so it's not like I'm in the habit of starting these only to see them get no support. So please, comment on content, not on the contributor.
 * Now, as to your argument that this is "not a press release but rather a short history", sorry, I don't buy the argument. First, it's hosted on a site dedicated to product promotion. Second, it's clearly labelled a "comunicato", i.e. a communiqué or a press release. And third, the language used is obviously promotional ("Syneto offers rapid, dependable and ready-to-use software"; "since 1988, Techne security has been a leader in information security in Italy", etc). It's even written in the first person, by Techne, Syneto's distributor. So no, this does not qualify as an independent source.
 * The challenge remains: find, per WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and notability is demonstrated. And please, do so without pointing out other corporate spam that made its way onto Wikipedia, and without ad-hominem attacks upon me. - Biruitorul Talk 16:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no independent coverage about this company. All I could find were press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (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.