`  : I don't have a strong opinion about how much COI and promotion is in the ACiD article. : I wouldn't have thought to challenge it, because I've heard of ACiD (I ran a BBS in the early '90s, and was briefly involved with Tribe).  : One decent indicator of consensus on notability is a long history of constructive edits. Many different people have worked on the ACiD article since 2004(!).  : It's possible that most of those edits came from people with COI issues, though it's not likely and probably not worth a lot of time to smoke out.  : One thing you can do that is constructive and may balance the coverage is to find places in the ACiD article that aren't well-sourced. You can tag those with {{fact}}, inline. Be careful, because COI applies to you in the ACiD article as well. : As for Evoke, if you can provide reliable sources that back up an assertion of notability, an article about it is likely to survive. But be careful, because the argument that ``Evoke is just like ACiD, and ACiD has an article!`` argument is specifically not valid; see WP:OTHERSTUFF.  : When I said ``tripped sensors``, I was just being colorful. I'm suggesting that whoever AfD'd your article may not have known anything about you, but rather just got set off by the tone of the article. : Bruce Schneier has enough publicity as it stands. =)  `