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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REMLOX[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable piece of software. E. Fokker (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, I feel compelled to respond. The argument that this article references a "non-notable piece of software" viloates the guidlines established by Wikipedia for deletion, as no evidence is given to prove that it is non-notable. Just because Ms. Fokker has not heard of the software, does not make it not-notable. As the sources in the article demonstrate, the software has gained recognition within the industry. While some of the data referenced in the article comes directly from the company's website, the references to news coverage and literary material comes from sites independent of the developer. Much of the lack of coverage in "mainstream" news is due to the reletive youth of the technology utilized in this software. While Ms. Fokker has much experience as a Wikipedian, her opinion that the software is non-notable should not be considered the consensus view.

Additionally, item 10 under "Before nominating an article for deletion" on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion page states:

"10.If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

While Ms. Fokker may believe that this article appears to sound like a press release, I would argue that any encyclopedic article on a product could be interpreted as seemign like a press release. Sufficient opportunity to develop this article has not been provided, as it was made AfD within minutes of being posted. Dustin.sachs (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, apparent conflict of interest judging from a Google search of the creator's username. The burden of proof is for notabilty, (through substantial coverage in reliable sources), there is no need to prove that it's not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN per Hairhorn. Looking over the sources as of right now (last edit) 3 seem to be company sponsored. Ref 4 sounds good until you look at the about page for the site and you see this "EPR Network (EPR stands for express press release) is one of the nation’s largest press release distribution networks on Web." Also, the PA Bar cite (ref 5) looks fairly trivial. I think this is a snowball close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerillero (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2011

Delete Firstly, there is a severe lack of reliable independent sources (I have checked and confirmed Guerillero's account of the references). Secondly, the article is written entirely in promotional terms. Non-notable and spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was modeled after other pages that have had success within Wikipedia (see Encase or Microsoft). Nobody here has been able to demonstrate how the article about this software is any more promotional than the sites I have listed. Both pieces of software were new at some point in time, and the lack of media coverage should not be considered in removal from this site. There are many things in the encyclopedia that lacked widestream coverage, but are included because they existed and were cutting edge or revolutionary. It would seem to me that in article about aspects of specialized industries, someone familiar with the industry should judge the notability of the article prior to removal from Wikipedia. How many people on Wikipedia know te intricate details of what a Coronary artery bypass surgery producedure is? Yet, this has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia with simply a request for citations for verification. It is my contention that deletion of this article is premature as other alternatives have not been been given sufficient time to be exhausted.38.110.205.163 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 38.110.205.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What other articles exist is of limited relevance: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific notability criteria that this page does not meet (and in its current version it may qualify for speedy deletion as spam). If you think there are sources out there, please add them to the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is a problem I am facing daily as I work on the broad Digital forensics topic. Most of these tools are lightly used, have little or no critical commentary and no academic coverage. Currently only the really mainstream tools (EnCase, for example) get enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. This is a pretty lesser known tool (I don't know anyone mainstream that uses it, though have heard of it) so I do not think it is possible to establish critical coverage at this time. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (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.