Talk:Kiteworks

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 March 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Promotion[edit]

This article came up in my patrols for articles that mention "Network Products Guide" because this is a pay for play award and its presence is usually indicative of a need for quick cleanup. After the cleanup was reverted, it came up in a search again for "Network Products Guide" so I've added it to my watchlist and took a closer look.

Here's a few things that jumped out at me:

The excessive use of the word "secure" without explaining what we mean by that. Isn't there a product review that talks about what encryption it uses or its specific security features?
Meaningless promotional words like "comprehensive" and benefits language like "ensuring data security and compliance" or "with the goal of helping organizations..."
Describing users of the software can be beneficial for example if we say the number of users or if there is a specific market like "used in heavily regulated industries" but stuff like "which has been adopted by many corporations and government agencies" doesn't impart any meaningful information to the reader other than "some people buy it."
Some minor editorializing about the market need, which would actually belong on a different article
External links are not allowed in the body of the article

Also, in general we never want an "Accolades" or "Recognition" section, which is almost always indicative of attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion. We do use Reception sections, which report based on in-depth, professional reviews. I note that Info Security Products Guide is a pay for play award and many of these are only "finalist" awards or trivial mentions in info-tainment news. Although there is no formal rule, the standard I was taught is that awards are worthy of inclusion if a profile story on the subject includes them. We would then follow the judgement of the source. CorporateM (Talk) 22:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]