Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genie Backup Manager

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.

Result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genie Backup Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete WP:SPAM. The primary contributors seem to be (now anonymous) spammers, editing only this page and other backup related pages to link to both this article and to their website. Efforts to curtail this on both their talk pages & on talk pages of articles have failed. Article created May 20. PRODed for notability by Dynaflow that same day. PROD removed without comment. I PRODed it on June 12 for spam & that prod was also removed without comment and without any change to content. Karnesky 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not Spam, but needs improvement.--Edtropolis 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is pretty visible media coverage. But currently it is written in a promotional and pov tone ("offers a very straightforward interface and can be operated by both inexperienced and professional users"). It needs to be fixed. --soum ^talk 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it (barely) has enough coverage to be notable, and the PC World piece is reliable enough to use as a source. I worked a bit on cleaning up the language and removed the editions section.--Chaser - T 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that your cleanup is appropriate. I'll withdraw my delete. Unless others see problems, it can be speedily kept. After further review, Genie claims that the Washington Post has a review of their product. If anyone has a citation for this, it should be added to the article. --Karnesky 19:24, 13 June 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.