Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Force

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. That is the consensus and it is strongly supported by our content policies (eg WP:V) and notability guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core Force

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

I see nothing indicate that this discontinued product has ever been notable. The only reference are press release. Miami33139 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software that never made it out of beta. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a topic that's worth keeping for the next generation; this not even a topic worth keeping for the next year. A dead-on-arrival substandard firewall product is hardly worthy of notice. Fleet Command (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only Freeware Windows port of PF with stateful filtration? And not just firewall, but HIPS? Having file and registry protection, that only lately started to make it into freeware firewalls? Having multiple reviews and forum discussions? I'm convinced, that we should keep the article until freeware HIPS and PF ports become common occurrence, or at least till Core Force becomes incompatible with all widely-used OSes. ETST (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I'm afraid ETST but none of these that you've mentioned are valid criteria of inclusion of an article in Wikipedia. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is those mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. These requirements must be reinforced with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Especially for your attention is the fact that Notability is not temporary: If the article is notable, we keep it regardless of whether its subject is still being actively developed or is now considered ancient history. Unfortunately, ETST, the subject of this article does not qualify as eligible for keeping neither per what you said nor per what it is. Fleet Command (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2010 (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.