Talk:PacketTrap

Hey guys, I think this article has been seriously cleaned since the conflict of interest header was tagged. Would an admin please consider revising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierretapia (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement

Seems that the article now accurately reflects an objective point of view. Clearly the company is well known in it's space —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.55.133 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about how many IT companies use PacketTrap? And the second section is useless at possible: it seems copied from a booklet. Zulon (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my reaction was too excessive, but it sounded like an advertisement for me. But at least, the article was not as neutral as possible. Zulon (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement to me too. First of all, nothing in this article is cited. Secondly, it could just be me, but the links at the bottom seem dubious. --24.254.194.26 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Added the advertisement flag. I wouldn't mind fixing it a bit, but there appears to be a VERY active IP address - probably a representative from the company. Too lazy for tug of war. Here's what I think it needs though:

• A history section before product details
• Less talk about product features and more about "what does the company do?"
• Remove the list of articles unless they are references
• General clean up of marketing stuff

For starters.

I don't think the article provides any value as it is now. Should we mark it for speedy deletion?

Wouldn't mind helping the PR person at PacketTrap create an acceptable article, but again, not a fan of tug-of-war.

I will help change the content. I agree that the references need to be cited, and there are is a little bit of marketing fluff. Lets work to get a good article up. The company will well known in its space so it makes sense to have an article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.181.45 (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The articles provided vouch for its notability. What's bugging me is the Versions section in particular at the moment. It could just be me but it looks like its ripped from a product promo. --24.254.194.26 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that I looked at it more what needs to go is the 'Articles about Packettrap' (this is advertisement). If the articles section goes or is referenced specificially in the main body, the article is fine. I will correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.181.45 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a history section and made the article even more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.64.190 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

NOTHING in the Versions section is sourced. Does nobody else see anything wrong with that? --206.248.228.106 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Non notable and marketing trash

This subject doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion, and the information contained seem just useless business-marketing trash. Here is an article where their CEO gives advices on how to promote your own company through wikipedia.--Sum (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. PROD it, maybe? I've never done an AfD, and I wouldn't know where to start, but I'd promote one or the other. Cheers, C628 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Inc. article originates from a public relations firm. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree I just ran across this and think it meets the criteria for {{db-inc}}. I just don't see the notability here. IMHO, as it stands now, it warrants no more than the one sentance already in the Quest Software article. The only argument for notability that I can possibly see is that it was another me-too startup.

BTW, I think the article at Inc. is the original usage; at least in the PR firm's version, the link for the author goes back to Inc. However, there is a date at the PR firm's atricle of Jan 12 2010 while the date of the Inc. article is Jan 18 2010. Hard to tell the Chicken from the Egg here, but since Inc. published it, it is legit, although that is not enough to make it notable. --Arg342 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Db-inc proposed. There have been no further comments for two plus days.

db-inc editors:Please review carefully. It could be argued that this article has generated it's own notability through the Inc. article referenced. But that media article just explains why this Wikipedia article exists. Tricky. If the Inc. article did not exist, this would be more clear cut. I don't think media coverage of a Wikipedia article should make any difference about the notability of the subject itself.--Arg342 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to decline the speedy deletion request - it's not clear cut enough for my liking and the presence of some sources makes it look as if WP:CORP could be met. I suggest taking it to AFD instead. SmartSE (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)