I am not a Wireshark developer, as you have publicly accused me of being. I would like you to provide evidence to back your claim or withdraw the accusation. Thank you. -- Steven Fisher 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You asked for the reason I started the deletion vote. The main reason was that it read like advertising copy. I tagged it as such. It seemed nobody was interested in fixing your page to fit within wikipedia's guidelines, and after a few weeks you removed the tag. If the article isn't going to improve past the point of pure marketing material, it should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I nominated it for deletion, and hoped someone with product knowledge would improve the article (although, to be completely blunt, I'd much rather see a deletion than see the advertising copy continue). I abstained from voting on the deletion, leaving it to the people who decide such things.
You're right that non-notable is pretty subjective; if the article wasn't advertising copy, I would not have nominated it for deletion. Others might have, though. You should also note that all of the comments agree that it is advertising copy, few agree with the deletion on notability grounds. Indeed, if it hadn't read like advertising copy I wouldn't have started searching to find out how notable it was. However, once I'd decided to nominate it for being advertising copy I did a few searches. Google reports 24,000 hits for OmniPeek and 442,000 for Wireshark (which you'd quoted to me as a similar product). So I included its apparent low notability in the deletion nomination.
At this point, you should have improved the article so that it no longer fell under the deletion policy (exactly like the template says to do). Instead, you attacked my motives and tried to argue I was stifling competition.
The Wireshark and your articles are nothing alike. If your articles were like Wireshark's, I wouldn't have nominated your articles for deletion. If Wireshark article was like this one, I'd have tagged Wireshark as advertising copy. Had it not been cleaned up (and it probably would have been), I'd have nominated it for deletion, too (and without hesitation).
You're probably wondering what your next step should be. I am, too. If you had revamped the article to not read as advertising copy, it probably would have been kept. But once a page is listed for deletion, the period it stays listed is automatic. At this point, I think the vote is just about out of time and any changes would not be seen early enough to change things. I imagine you're quite frustrated at this point. I do sympathize. -- Steven Fisher 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)