Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymizer (company)

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. PeaceNT 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymizer (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Originally speedied as spam, one of the corp folks exercising COI has protested, so to be fair, I've restored it and am sending it to AfD for wider input. Personally, I don't see notability being demonstrated per our guidelines, and the thing reads like a corporate brochure AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concerns about how it read are clean-up reasons, but let's see: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5]. So I see plenty of indications that this company meets the standards of WP:ORG by having multiple third-party coverage. You can see a lot more with a google news search. FrozenPurpleCube 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - again, promotional. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could identify the parts of the article that you consider to be promotional, perhaps they might rewritten in a more balanced fashion? The site does meet the standards of WP:WEB and WP:ORG by having multiple reviews of it and its products in third-party media. FrozenPurpleCube 19:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as per Mister Manticore. It does read somewhat vague and slightly promotional ("enterprise class competitive intelligence tools", etc.), but that is a reason to improve the article, not delete it, as per WP:DP. The links MM listed clearly establish sufficient notability. --XDanielx 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:CORP and WP:WEB, but needs more than primary sources. As Alexa shows [6] the service has declined precipitously in popularity, probably because it serves a niche and not a broad need and this reflects increasing acceptance of privacy policies and so forth. But it did receive plenty of coverage when it was popular. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alexa results are dubious enough on their own, but I think a decline might be explainable by noting that they discontinued their free web services. FrozenPurpleCube 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this article should be a redirect to Proxy server and a new article made for the company. Mathmo ^Talk 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Mildy notable, per sites listed by Manticore. i ^said 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, one of the first proxy server companies. Wl219 08:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There ought to be an article about Anonymizer. The article itself needs work, but the subject is important enough. Squidfryerchef 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I renamed this to Anonymizer (company), split the articles per Squidfryerchef, and added this source to both, which should address the concern of Dhartung, and this source which shows involvement with a notable topic. Dhaluza 09:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — was neutral before the rename. Erik Warmelink 21:34, 3 August 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.