Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellipool Network Monitor Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intellipool_Network_Monitor

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. Nomination withdrawn. GDonato (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellipool Network Monitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable; see Talk:Intellipool Network Monitor for details. A. B. ^(talk) 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) See below. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are more articles about other companies that are somewhat like this listed at Talk:List of network management systems#Non-notable entries. Some are obvious deletion candidates, others less clearly so. Other editors' help in assessing which to keep and which to delete would be appreciated. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I think it can be rewritten to demonstrate notability, but looking at the first 100 google hits I'm not very confident of that.jonathon 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an axe to grind -- if someone does show this is notable, I'm happy to keep. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Apparently insufficient sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 06:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A search for "intellipool" shows up 77.600 hits on google. If there is a problem with the article from an editoral point of view I can understand that. But deleting it based on a split second search on google is wrong, if that where the case, most articles (if not all) relating to any software product would go the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.158.58 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is registered to Intellipool and has only been used for Intellipool-related edits. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the detailed discussion at Talk:Intellipool Network Monitor regarding unique Google hits (196 387)^[1][2] as well as unproductive Google News and Google News Archive searches. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, since the deletion here apparently is based on whats in or not in Googles index, you, or someone familiar with the subject, should review what it scores in relevant keywords, that should be a far better "notability" metric consider Google's now famous "page rank" algorithm. buran 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buran, it's hard to prove a negative when it comes to notability. I'm really much less interested in the number of hits than the "reliability" of what turns up. I've seen AfDs fail where a subject has <50 unique hits but they were "reliable sources" as narrowly defined by the WP:NNNotability Guideline. I would not have nominated this article if I could have found something that satisfied the guideline; if something does turn up, I'm happy to turn my "delete" to a "keep". --A. B. ^(talk) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on relisting: I am happy to run this a little longer since the nominator is happy to keep the article if notability is established, I would recommend deleting if there are no comments which do this. GDonato (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, there appear to be no sources that can establish notablity. Nuttah68 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failure of notability IMO. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is one notable source, review in a IDG paper. http://sartryck.idg.se/Art/Intellipool_nok12004eng.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.188.198 (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- IDG is certainly notable (they publish Computerworld/InfoWorld, CIO, Macworld, Network World, PC World, etc.). As the nominator for this article, I am changing my recommendation to "keep" per WP:NN. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.