Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enigma software group

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. To the author and subject, our guidelines for notability are generally not satisfied by passing mentions in the media - articles should be directly focused on the subject if being used to satisfy

. There are two links which were posted a couple of days ago and have not been discussed, but I don't feel that I'm compromising my summary with personal opinion by saying that both articles only make passing mentions of Enigma and are not sufficient to reverse the consensus for deletion here.

To reply to Royalguard, there is a backlog on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old at the moment, so few discussions are being closed after only the minimum five days. You can help out if you want - see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma software group

Corporate vanity page of corporation that fails to satisfy

]

• Delete - Seven employees, traded on OTCBB, and only one obscure product. That article,
  WP:CORP. --Afed 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Article created by company related editor. NPOV! --Bill.matthews 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Our company is relevant if you refer to
  WP:CORP. (Disclosure: I am this article's primary author. I have a vested interest in this article being published because it is about our company.) --enigmasoftwaregroup 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In regard to the PC Magazine article - it's about your SpyHunter software program, not your company. So there isn't even one published work in evidence, let alone multiple works. There are thousands (tens of thousands?) of publicly traded companies, which is why you don't see that in the criteria. And since the OTCBB is not an index, the third point of the criteria doesn't apply to you either. Valrith 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct on point #3. However, Enigma Software Group does not fall under the deletion rule you pointed out. According to the rules on page you referenced:... "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:" We clearly meet the criteria on point #1. In regard to your comment that there is not one piece of published evidence talking about our company I will refer you to these articles which talk about Enigma Software Group the company. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,112146/article.html http://antivirus.about.com/b/a/083597.htm and http://www.latimes.com/technology/chi-0607310091jul31,1,5430030.column?coll=la-utilities-technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 September 2006
    • I think my last comment clearly closes the debate and there is no reason to discuss this further, I am removing the deletion heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 September 2006
      • The first article mentions Enigma in passing in a single sentence near the end. The second is a single paragraph about an ad campaign for SpyHunter. The third is again a single mention of Enigma in a single sentence near the end. These are all trivial, failing the notability requirements. Valrith 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Valrith you are not being fair here, nor are you abiding by the very rules that you pointed out. According to the rules it is the publication that should not be trivial. The publications I referenced are not trivial they are major publications. Additionaly the rules go on to say that a trivial mention would be to "simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories". Again that is clearly not the case here. There is absolutely no rule that says the entire article has to be about the company. Our company clearly falls under wikipedia's criteria of a notable corporation under the first point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 September 2006
          • I'm still not fully convinced that Enigma meets the notability requirement. But even if it does, it still requires POV work so that it reads less like your corporate web site. In addition, I should point out that the information at http://antivirus.about.com/b/a/083597.htm is negative to your company and product and I am suprised you linked to it. Assuming the article survives, I will add this information so that it will be a more well rounded account of Enigma's activities. --Afed 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is quite well written, but it seems to be
  Spyhunter which seems to be the company product then I'll say keep. Also the name needs to be changed to Enigma Software Group. If not, I'm sorry it'll have to be delete. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete - Just barely fails to meet the criteria. Close, but not quite. I'd also suggest that SpyHunter be seriously revised or deleted (NPOV) Trnj2000 22:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on this right now. The article is fairly poor considering the system requirements are wrong- they're copied directly from
    Ad-Aware's article. --Wafulz 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak delete with some of the following reasoning:

There is exactly one non-trivial publication, when WP:CORP explicitly states that multiple are required. The publication isn't even about the company though- it mentions it, but it's focused entirely on the product. Think about it this way: do the articles provide any information that will help keep the article neutral and informative? The LA Times piece says at the very end "oh, try this too." The about.com entry is one paragraph in a blog, which is overwhelmingly negative and only about the company's pop up ad, and the PC World article says "Enigma makes spyware detection software" at the end. In the end, while it has been mentioned several times in passing, no information about the company has actually been published except that it has a pop-up campaign. In fact, the majority of the information within the company article is about its product.

If there are more publications in the future about the company, I could see this article existing, but not with the current lack of third party information. The article currently reads very positively about the company, despite the only real information published being

1. It makes anti-spyware software
2. This software isn't particularly good
3. The company's ad campaign is very bad and misguided

I can see the product having an article, but not the company. Also, I would not recommend writing about a company you work for due to inherent bias- it kills me to see that the company I work for has had a one sentence stub for several months, but I leave it because I can only say positive things about it. --Wafulz 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete 1.
  Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Points of View
  . This in itself is not a reason to delete, articles violating NPOV should be cleaned-up, not deleted, but there's no point if the article is going to be deleted on notability grounds anyway. 4. Posting messages on other user's talk pages asking them to come vote on an AFD is considered impolite at best.

Like some of the other users, I can see the product having an article. Having read the product's article, it needs clean-up to reflect a neutral point of view, and it needs to be better sourced. However, having articles about both the company and the product seems a little much.

All of that said, I rarely support deletion in an AFD. I've found that for articles where I agree with delete, there are more than enough other people arguing delete that I'd just be one voice among many saying "delete per nom", so I just don't participate in those. I tend to be a bit of an inclusionist, and often jump into deletion debates on marginal articles saying "keep". If not for the message left on my talk page asking me to participate in this AFD, I probably would not have paid it any attention, or, if I did, I might have said weak keep instead of weak delete. This is just one of several reasons why it is a bad idea to spam user talk pages asking people to vote in an AFD. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity article on NN company by someone connected wit the company who mentioned, apropos of nil, the existance of this discussion on my talk page–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that the original author came out and said, in this very dscussion, that the article was intended as an ad.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ad, and this AFD has been open for nine days (a decision should have really been made already). -
  Desk) 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment
  

This is User:enigmasoftwaregroup again. I have read all of your comments and your input has been educational. While this process has been a little frustrating. I cannot argue that the way Wikipedia is edited works very effectively. It is a great portal, and this has been quite a learning experience.

I have edited the article again. Being affiliated with the company it is impossible for me to have a Neutral Point of View. So in order to comply with that rule, I have reduced the entire article to a stub.

To answer Charles A.L.'s comment: This page is was never intended as an advertisemtent for the company. The reason I disclosed that I was affiliated earlier was to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. There are a lot of guidelines here and I am new just learning the rules. Now that I am more familiar with them I will make sure our company abides by them.

Now that the article should be compliant with NPOV. I think this page should stay as SpyHunter definitely meets the guidelines for a notable product. And Enigma as the author of a notable product should have a minimum of a stub

I feel that if the editors here determine that Enigma Software Group does not meet requirement 1 for a notable corporation from

stated that listing shopping hours, or simply being in a directory did not count. There was nothing that said one or two sentences about the company didn't count, all stories ever written had to be positive, all editors had to like your product, or that talking about a companies products is not talking about a company.

More Press on the company
Here is another article from Red Herring Magazine http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:JIhEsENj3cgJ:redherring.com/Article.aspx%3Fa%3D11282%26hed%3DIE7%2Bdue%2Bthis%2Bsummer+redherring+%22enigma+software%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6 the link is in google cache. You need to login to read it directly.
Here is another article from Smart Computing Magazine http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2005/s1603/10s03/10s03.asp All in total I think our company has been mentioned in publications well over 20 times in the last 3 years. Usually just a sentence or a paragraph some positive, some neutral, and some not so great.

Thank you all for your input and your patience with us. Enigmasoftwaregroup 07:08, 17 September 2006 (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.