Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdRem Software, Inc.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to NetCrunch. The discussion below has shown that the notability of AdRem is not independent of its flagship product NetCrunch. I would personally recommend writing a section in the article NetCrunch about the company, but there is little worth merging from this article. Deryck C. 15:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdRem Software, Inc.

[edit]
AdRem Software, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator with the following rationale: "Added additional citations for notability, removed notability objection. Paessler comparable company has page both for corporation as well as flagship product. Adrem is global corporation with 1000s of clients" First part of the arguments fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, second is irrelevant - size by itself is not related to notability; what we need is in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources. Those, however, are lacking - the article has a big list of dubious external links (to Russian PC Magazine, some blogs, etc.). I am not seeing much on news, and much of what I see are PR releases. Lots of red flags here suggesting your average variety commercial spam trying to use Wikipedia as Yellow Pages. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Notability can be compared to IpSwitch.com, a competitor with their WhatsUp Gold monitoring platform. adremsoftware.com has a lower Alexa page rank that ipswitch.com, in and of itself justifying notability. Both in terms of product offering, size of the enterprise, and notoriety on the internet, Adrem Software compares to competitors that are happily listed on wikipedia without complaints. You can find a huge list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems, with many software offerings and organizations listed that have less notoriety. The network monitoring field itself is fairly niche, and "in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources" is rarely that, but is in fact paid advertisement. The number of users is a much more effective measure of notoriety, especially in such a niche market, than how many paid reviews you have. There are sources in multiple languages.

User:mRojek — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: OK, but that has to do with notability. AdRem Software is more notable than many of the others listed here. What about the rest of the points made? My question would be what would qualify as notoriety in an industry that lacks it? Wikipedia has a "network monitoring" entry, and hosts many options and organizations in the field. AdRem shares a similar scope in terms of functionality, clientele, and organization as these, and in fact exceeds that of many. Why the additional scrutiny here? Should dozens of entries be removed to fit this narrow definition of notability that doesn't take into account the realities of the industry? What could be a better gauge of notoriety than client reach, or Alexa rank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.214.21 (talk • contribs)

  • No, it doesn't make me feel better that your crusade is going to gut the network monitoring entries. Paessler should be here, as should IpSwitch, Solarwinds, and the multitude of other, smaller entries for the network monitoring as well as the comparison of network monitoring entries to have relevant and useful information. You haven't responded to most of my points, however. According to Wikipedia policies, regarding notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#No_inherent_notability. The audience is important as well in determining notability, which is covered both via Alexa as well as clientele. Furthermore, international sources are necessary and are included. In terms of media, there is much more coverage in German, Japanese, and Polish media, among many others. How many should be included to fit your criteria? Primary sources regarding AdRem Software's products are plentiful, but there must be constraint in how many are going to be posted. The article here has an appropriate amount of detail, and is not an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.156.53 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the very policy you quoted, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Where are those effects in our case? (not talking of future possible effects, but of demonstrated effects with reliable sources of course) If you feel the notability criteria are too stringent, go discuss them on the guideline page; if you think many covered subjects are less notable than this one, go delete them.
Oh, and "OK, but that has to do with notability. AdRem Software is more notable than many of the others listed here" (etc.) is quite an incredible response to a WP:OTHERSTUFF critique - did you even read and understand the page? Tigraan (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does an organization need to meet *all* of those criteria to be considered notable? Because if that's the case, you'll have large corporations that don't have demonstrable effects. But of course, it doesn't. The text you quoted requests that simply be considered, and does not read like a requirement. AdRem Software fulfills the depth of coverage requirements (as stated, more can be added to clutter if that is what is required) and audience requirements. Those are *primary* criteria according to the regulations. It doesn't need to be a discussion about changing the policy, since primary criteria in this case are fulfilled. You are citing evaluation suggestions as a reason for deletion, while ignoring the fact that the primary criteria are fulfilled, especially given the scope of the industry in question.
  • Of course it is not a cumulative requirement of impact on culture AND society AND entertainment etc.; that's what the word "OR" means. In that case, the most likely impact it could have had is science, economy or possibly society, but I do not quite see it. You are right that it is not a "rule" or "primary criterion" (we call that policy) but merely some help to interpret the policy (we call that a guideline). So back to the core policy: where is the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"?
The references leave me unimpressed. [1] is a press release. [2] is WP:PRIMARY. [3] is just a stock listing (guess what, it is not enough). And finally, [4] mentions AdRem among the "honor roll" (not the "winner's circle") of a specific software contest with 4 "winners" and 14 "honorable" mentions. The "awards and recognition" section is actually a disguised reference list, but there it seems to be blogs and passing mentions (note the "significant coverage" requirement; being listed on a "products of the week" article is hardly a proof of notability...).
Hence, the primary criteria for notability are not fullfilled the least by the current list of references, and I could find nothing better by searching the web. Admittedly, I did not look at all references from "awards and recognition" so I might have missed something.
Please be aware that WP:BOMBARDing an article with references to avoid getting it deleted is generally not viewed favorably: what is needed is some few good sources, not a lot of bad ones. Tigraan (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep this article, as it fulfills the primary notability criteria for depth of coverage and audience. Depth of coverage is presented both in English and for the foreign-language requirement. More could be added, but would result in clutter. A great deal of foreign-language coverage is available, but would be of little interest to English language readers. Audience is established both in size and scope of global clientele, as well as with Alexa ranking. As quoted from the policy "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." and there exists a great body of international as well as US national media. Furthermore, deleting both this and other sources would gut the network monitoring topic, and significantly reduce an interested user's access to comprehensive information on the topic. Mrojek 17:35, 1 April 2015 (CET)
Please provide those good sources that demonstrate depth of coverage, because I still have to see any (per my comment above; no need to rehash the same discussion twice). If this AfD eventually ends up "gutting the network monitoring topic", then so be it: the article stands or falls on its merit, and not on considerations of "dangerous precedents" or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tigraan (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are ignoring Audience, which the AdRem Software entry would fulfill. The policy does not require all conditions be met, as evidenced by illegal conduct being listed. AdRem Software fulfills the Audience policy, especially when considering the industry. Aside from clientele totals and Alexa ranking, you may also be interested in a list of clients: http://www.adremsoft.com/customers/

Time for press, i suppose. First of all, dismissing Network World? That is the #1 publication for this industry, dismissing it is ridiculous. Specific major analyst coverage can be found from Gartner: http://blogs.gartner.com/jonah-kowall/2014/05/09/monitoring-technology-pick-week-of-may-12th-2014-adrem-netcrunch/ and from EMA: http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/research/asset.php/2772/Report-Summary---EMA-Radar-for-Enterprise-Network-Availability-Monitoring-Systems-%28ENAMS%29:-Q3-2014

Additional press (tried not to repeat from same domain):

That'll be more than enough to fulfill the press point. Therefore both depth of coverage and audience conditions are met, while the independence of sources is covered by major IT publications posted above. Mrojek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.214.21 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what to say other than repeat the policies. We need substantial coverage from reliable independant sources. That is a cumulative condition: there must be a couple of issues from independant and reliable sources that have substantial coverage. A lot of significant coverage in unreliable sources plus a lot of passing mentions in reliable sources is not enough.

Please stop dropping tons on references in the hope one will stick. Nobody will go through the hassle of reading them all. Please give one, two or at most three sources that establish notability: the best that you can find, in terms of prominence, detailed coverage and independance from the subject. If those are good ones, then it is enough to survive AfD; if they are found lacking, then the others are no use. Tigraan (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not dropping references hoping one will stick. Two major analyst firms are a major source of notability. Network World, Major Geeks, Toms IT Pro, InfoWorld, are all **MAJOR**, reliable third-party press sources. I abstained from blog posts, forum posts, shareware sites. You've already disregarded Network World, which as i said before, is absurd when establishing notability in this field. All of the sources from the USA and Poland specifically, are major, and more than fulfill the requirements. You are, again, ignoring the audience condition of the notability policy which is clearly being met. The point of the list is to show there are many, many sources. For the entry itself, it was limited to only a few, relevant ones to prevent clutter. Mrojek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.214.21 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained the problem and you seem not willing to listen. At present moment, there are:
  1. reliable sources, but only passing mentions, such as this Netword World "product of the week" page;
  2. significant coverage, but in unreliable sources, such as this (if it is not a blog post, I do not know what it is). Remember "unreliable" means "unreliable to establish notability", not "with factual errors".
No amount of both will ever be equivalent to a single reliable source with significant coverage, which I did not find by my own search or when looking through (part of) your list, and which is required by the policies (if you disagree here, please say so in a clear and direct way).
Hence why I ask you to put forward a very limited number of references (no more than 3) that you think are the best ones. You think all of them are good, fine, but please select the best for us to read, because some people (including myself) are not willing to spend five hours checking all the references for a WP article in a domain where they are no specialists to find out 90% are not GNG material but the other 10% are enough. Tigraan (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My list has a Network World comparison entry, not product of the week. You cherry picked one bad foreign language one to suggest that it's a representation of the whole? Focus on English and Polish and you have reliable sources. It doesn't require 5 hours, but presenting a limited selection will just make it easier for you to dismiss them. The policy says that a compan is "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Three is now significant? Come on. Mrojek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.156.53 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you abstained from blog posts, forum posts, shareware sites, and I found one blog post (which, by the way, looks fine to me, but it just doesn't pass the criteria for reliable sources). One of the Network world links was to the "product of the week" thing.
Now you might say it was only some of the references and I was unlucky in picking, but some of the other references are fine, and worthy to look at. Fair enough. But you see, that is exactly the problem I complained about and you did not address: the useful information is drowned out by the bad one. And yes, three, or even two good sources makes for a significant subject, a thousand shaky ones do not. Tigraan (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: just to be perfectly clear, if you are afraid to present a limited set of sources because I could dismiss any single entry, this is precisely where the problem lies. Tigraan (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Available sources include Network World, PC Pro and Network Computing, PC Advisor and others. Software has been the subject of numerous in-depth reviews and articles. The only possible reason for deletion would be promotion, but I don't think the promotion is adequately problematic to warrant deletion. Trim the awards section and do 5 minutes of copyediting and we'll have a decent page. CorporateM (Talk) 02:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you, User:CorporateM, and User:Mrojek are clearly missing, is that all the sources here are about the company's product, NetCrunch software, which may be notable. But the company that made it, AdRem, doesn't seem to pass WP:NCOMPANY. It doesn't matter how many more reviwews or mentions of its products you find; we are not talking about them. Notability of a product has no bearing on the notability of the producer; notability is not inherited. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly? Feel free to cite that policy then, because in general corporations are notable for the products they create, or the services they provide, not for merely existing. Also, to quote the policy regarding your new arbitrary standard: "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus
WP:PRODUCT, last paragraph: Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.
However, this should not be taken to the extreme that "a product's notability has no impact whatsoever on its designer's": the point is that if a company is very notable (possibly due to a very successful product), then it likely has coverage on its own. I remain unimpressed by the four sources you CorporateM provided, which deal exclusively with the product. (BTW, the PC Advisor link is a weak one even for notability of NetCrunch.) Tigraan (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previously listed sources also include major, independent sources writing about NetCrunch Tools, a separate program from NetCrunch itself, i'll be happy to find more for you, but google is your friend. Aside from that, AdRem has other products listed in similar major sources: Here's a Network World article about FreeCon and Server Manager: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2314952/software/adrem-manages-netware-and-oes-servers-from-a-single-console.html, and Freecon alone: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2312943/software/adrem-upgrades-freecon-for-netware.html. Novell: https://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/tools/13979.html. Note that Novell has lost significant market share in regards to servers in recent years, but AdRem was once a major player in this arena. AUS Freecon: http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/65245/price_right_these_management_tools/. Server Manager through Novell feature story: https://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/291.html. This is why i am of the opinion that NetCrunch deserves its own page, as it has current, widespread notability, and AdRem in general, not just for NetCrunch, but for the library of software past and present. However, if an article specifically focusing on AdRem Software is what you want, here: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2320216/software/adrem-aims-to-simplify-windows-network-management.html Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus User:Tigraan
Thank you! That latter source is more in line with what we were looking for. I usually do not like opinion pages, but it seems to be independant coverage. With that in mind, I change to weak keep (full keep would need another source). Tigraan (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interview with the CEO? http://www.computerworld.pl/artykuly/322316/EnFace.Tomasz.Kunicki.html. I'll keep looking for a few more to add. Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus User:Tigraan — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Interviews are not considered independant coverage, since the journalist is not making his own analysis. It could be an interesting addition to the references section, though (unlike the "product of the week" stuff). Tigraan (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's paywall locked, but from Gazeta Wyborcza we have about Novell success: http://www.archiwum.wyborcza.pl/Archiwum/1,0,926770,19991012RP-TKO,CUDZE_CHWALICIE_SWEGO_NIE_ZNACIE,.html. Here is Rzeczpospolita (newspaper): http://www.ekonomia.rp.pl/artykul/74122.html I'll continue looking Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus User:Tigraan — Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Network World seems like a reliable source ([5]). [6] this article only deals with the company in passing, but it is helpful. Pl AdRem, firma informatyczna z Krakowa polskim Liderem Eksportu is good, if brief. I cannot access the GW newspaper. It's a shame that AdRem doesn't host mirrors of its press coverage. If I could review this GW article, maybe it would be enough to change my opinion, the other two sources go a long way to help. Btw, Mrojek, are you connected to AdRem? I am curious about your interest in this company. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, unfortunately there is no mirroring of press coverage. Yes, i work here, but i'm not sure what bearing my interest should have? My only interest is to fulfil the policy requirements, which at this point i think have been more than reached. Major US and international publications have covered both AdRem, and more specifically, a variety of the company's software. NetCrunch obviously deserves its own entry, but creating entries for the rest would be clutter, and given that much of the coverage is about both AdRem as well as a given product, a corporate page would be more than sufficient Mrojek (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EXTERNALREL and the following. Long story short: if you are paid for editing WP, you absolutely need to disclose it in a visible manner; and in any case, it is better to avoid articles where your judgement may be biaised (your town, your job, etc.). Tigraan (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Through I personally have no issue with it, and I believe you handled yourself here is a neutral manner, yes, our policies do require that editors reveal any professional conflict of interest they may have when it involves paid editing. See WP:PAID. Again, no worries - but I'd encourage creating a userpage where you clearly state your affiliation. (I believe my userpage, for example, states my employee as well). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not paid for editing WP. But sure. I'll get to putting together a page, given how much time i spend here any way. I've been having enough trouble with the signatures that i suppose it's time to learn. I will post a summary below citing a few selected sources, and outline concisely my argument for keeping the page through highlighting how it meets policy requirements.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete The attempts to throw potential references until one sticks doesnt give me hope that they are actually notebale. Amortias (T)(C) 11:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is addressed further on, notable references are provided both for AdRem Software as well as for individual products by the firm, in national and international media. Attempt was not to throw, but incorrectly trying to fulfill a request for multiple sources. Mrojek
The wall-of-text discussion is intimidating, but it eventually ended up with one quality source: [7]. The jury is still out about whether it is enough (I tend to think it is). Tigraan (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are also sources from Polish national media to add to that, in the case of AdRem specific media. I continue hold that the significant coverage for NetCrunch, NetCrunch Tools, Server Manager, and FreeCon should also apply, as creating independent pages for each separate tool would be clutter, and this page would suffice for all (save NetCrunch). As a software company, most coverage will be about the products themselves. Mrojek
  • Redirect It is painfully obvious that NetCrunch is notable whereas its developer is not. The few admissible sources that cover the company rather than its flagship product[8][9][10] are insufficient to warrant a separate article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to summarize the total discussion, NetCrunch is the topic of most of the media presented here. However, we do have accepted major, third-party sources as AdRem specific availble: [11][12][13]. Of course, as a software company, it's difficult to separate AdRem from it's products, but FreeCon, LiteCon, ServerManager and NetCrunch Tools are subject to a great deal of accepted media sources. My suggestion would be to keep this page and the NetCrunch one, instead of making separate pages for each product. Also, aforementioned competitors have also been kept after review, with admittedly less media. I would recommend amending according to User:CorporateM suggestions, with perhaps a paragraph on each product with acceptable sources to reinforce notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrojek (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per Iaritmioawp --nonsense ferret 14:40, 24 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AdRem_Software,_Inc.&oldid=1142164331"