Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LogMeIn (2nd nomination)
- 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 no consensus as far as notability is concerned, but nonetheless speedily deleted as blatant advertising, i.e., an article that reads like a sales flyer and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Sandstein 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
LogMeIn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) An article about a start-up that had been deleted over a year ago, after this discussion, author insists that circumstances have changed since then. It was speedied under G4, but now bringing it here for community to decide. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. LogMeIn's software is very widely used for remote support purposes.It has advantages over traditional remote access tools in that it does not require an open port for incoming connections. The article as it stands is poor but there is a notable subject here. I would like to see the article recast as being about the software not the comapny. --DanielRigal 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as per above comment. The article may require a clean up, but LogMeIn is a notable subject. I am the person who persuaded Carlos to undelete an article (I am not however an original author). Alex Pankratov 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article reads like an advertisement, and does nothing to establish the notability of the topic. How many people use this company's software? Has it been featured in any tech magazines or other outside sources?--Danaman5 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know it is not good. I am working on improving it as we speak. I think I am making progress. --DanielRigal 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. There's a reason why the deletion was overturned. Perhaps non notable a year ago, but certainly relevant now. J-stan TalkContribs 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was the deletion overturned? Carlossuarez46 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong KeepItIn. Plenty of reviews,[1][2][3]. (I'm using it myself. It's worth every penny I didn't pay.) Clarityfiend 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, but fix - right now this article is nearly a candidate for db-spam. I think a real article can be made, but it's not there now. --Rocksanddirt 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IMHO it's been notable for at least a year ... richi 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix. Addaone 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as written in spite of references, it still reads as advertisement. Unless it is rewritten, it is fatally flawed. Wikipedia is not spam. MarkinBoston 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been trying to tidy it up and I think it is much better than it was initially. I know it isn't perfect, and I am going to have another go at it, but really don't see any valid comparison to Spam. If people could give some more specific feedback, or just edit the article, I am sure we can get it up to scratch. --DanielRigal 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view, the article still fails to establish notability. The only claim of notability I could find is an unsourced claim in the lead that 20 million people use the software. It seems that everyone else has heard of this software, so there must be some better evidence of notability that you can put in.--Danaman5 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the reviews would be enough as they are from mainstream IT publications. They also have a couple of "editor's choice" type awards and some very major companies on their customer list. I didn't want to add this in case it made the article sound more "spammy". Do you think I should? I have had a quick look for critical/negative coverage but not found any. I will add a reference to the 20 million, anyway. --DanielRigal 11:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view, the article still fails to establish notability. The only claim of notability I could find is an unsourced claim in the lead that 20 million people use the software. It seems that everyone else has heard of this software, so there must be some better evidence of notability that you can put in.--Danaman5 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been trying to tidy it up and I think it is much better than it was initially. I know it isn't perfect, and I am going to have another go at it, but really don't see any valid comparison to Spam. If people could give some more specific feedback, or just edit the article, I am sure we can get it up to scratch. --DanielRigal 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Clearly notable, major player in the field of remote assistance. Also to me doesn't read like an advertisement (perhaps because it has now been cleaned up?). 86.3.141.205 23:38, 24 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.