Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Listing HTML-to-PDF
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,495,408 edits
Line 7: Line 7:
<!--Please add new items directly below this line, above any existing items.-->
<!--Please add new items directly below this line, above any existing items.-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML-to-PDF}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML-to-PDF}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDB (Linux)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetriQ}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetriQ}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGAST (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGAST (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 19:34, 28 June 2010

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Software. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Software

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. –MuZemike 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTML-to-PDF

HTML-to-PDF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. All references are primary. SnottyWong talk 04:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author's addition here is appropriate for software of this type and level of importance. SnottyWong squeal 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interesting free product but brand new (initial release on April 2010) which gives a very limited time-frame to acquire independent coverage or encyclopedic value. Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 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.
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. T. Canens (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MetriQ

MetriQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deleted as spam a week ago, although that article focused more on the company than the software. Fails to establish notability. The two "references" are abstracts of papers co-written by a Metriq employee who also created this article. Fails WP:COMPANY dramatic (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, new to wiki, but have added a short page on talk about this. Thanks, nile Nile1964 (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do these mysterious citation say why the software is notable? We have plenty of verification that the software exists.
  • Delete. Lack of independent coverage. The papers listed as references, although apparently in peer-reviewed journals, are co-authored by a MetriQ employee. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This then becomes an interesting discussion. The co-author is, in this instance the second and event third author, never lead. However this presents a paradox. Would Einstein be refused reference to relativity on Wiki because he authored the refereed paper? The whole point of peer-review is to ascertain the 'novelty' of the work, and in so doing state its noteworthiness and hence Encylopedic content as verifiable. By being peer-reviewed, the author of the Wiki page detailing this work must surely become irrelevant.JuryEales (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point would only be relevant if the Metriq software was the subject of the cited papers - which does not appear to be the case based on the title, abstract and appendix that those of us without a subscription can see. We can best assume that metriq was used as a tool in the study. Quelle surprise! The fact of a company founder using his on software in research for an academic paper does absolutely nothing to support a claim of notability. dramatic (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Accept. I think that if researcher develops a measurement tool, then it generally done so as part of a larger body of research, for specific job, and look at metrics. Use that tool and produce data for researcher and part of peer-reviewed study, is of useful to know. If that tool is now commercial I think this does not detract from it is use and not matters. I know this tool used in University of Bologna for example. Sorry my English not so good. Carlos Estandu (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prefer to vote for keep than delete for articles BUT a) The site of the software company is under construction b) There are no accessible links to the referred articles so I can not check how relevant they are with the product c) The article needs serious work to become encyclopedic. For example there is no real explanation of what Metriq is and how it is used when it dedicates most of its length describing the company. Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be small startup with no indication of shopping product, number of employees etc. Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in any way. I note that most of the accounts voting accept appear not to have previous done any edits - SimonLyall (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feedback - Some interesting threads. I have re-written the article, i hope removing the objections put forward to date, which included an incorrect link to Metriq.com. Ooops Nile1964 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It now contains more statements which are in need of direct citation, and there are still no independent references. If you wish to save the article, finding independent non-trivial references is the only way to go. dramatic (talk) 07:28, 4 July 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAST

AfDs for this article:
AGAST (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article does not indicate encyclopedic notability. Oo7565 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 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.
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 all. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of XMPP library software

List of XMPP library software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete A useless article. Just a long list of external links (which I've removed) which goes against the "not a list of indiscriminate links" part of WP:NOT. And a bunch of red links (which I just removed) pointing to articles that no-one has any interest in creating. The only articles that exist are one liners. And its been marked as needing expert assistance for a year and a half. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because NOTABILITY <= ZERO (and they have both been one liners for more than a year now):

QXmpp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Smack (library) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the following related page because we gain nothing here that isn't done better by using categories (which already exist), because of WP:NOT and because articles like this just invite spammers trying to advertise their products/projects (please note I've deleted the spam content, but everyone knows it will inevitably come back).

List of XMPP server software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairMcMillan (talk • contribs)

  • Delete — Spammy, with mostly non-notable content. —mono 00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of XMPP server software: It has eight programs & is organized in a way categories cannot be (by both language and license) and is a good stub that can be expanded in both notable products and other points of comparison. I furthermore think the deletion discussion should be split, at least treating the server software separately from the libraries. I'd weakly !vote to delete the library list due to the few number of members that it has, but would not be opposed to re-creation assuming there were more notable libraries out there. --Karnesky (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's just an invitation for spam. The article is clean now only because AlistairMcMillan cleaned it up before proposing for deletion. This is what it looked like prior to the AfD. Nobody bothers to maintain these list articles, so they always become spammy, unverifiable and useless. -- intgr [talk] 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please tell me where our policies state that "spam targets" should be deleted. Actual spam, yes. But if something can be cleaned up, it should be. --Karnesky (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You tell me where our policies give explicit approval to inclusion of list articles? In response to your request, I'll point out WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also the spirit of WP:N is "delete stuff that nobody cares about". Given that nobody maintains this article, I think it's fair to say that nobody cares about it, making it subject to deletion. It's only when these articles are put up for deletion, that someone notices them. -- intgr [talk] 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here: the article is not a directory! It is a software comparison stub that provides organizational and navigational aids to articles within WP, per point 2 in WP:NOTLINK. If you are concerned about the content of the article, add it to your watchlist & clean it up: the edit history shows that external links are added very slowly to it. You have offered no policy arguments for deletion. --Karnesky (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have offered no policy arguments for keeping. And why should *I* put it on my watchlist and spend my time scrubbing it? I don't want to care about it — and nor does anyone else — so why keep it around? Mind you, this isn't the only unloved list article. If I monitored all of them, I'd have no time left to eat, sleep or live. Reducing their number is the solution. -- intgr [talk] 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:NOTLINK carves a specific exclusion in WP:NOT that this article fits into. Asking for a specific policy that mandates inclusion of this list is like asking for one for mandatory inclusion of any article. We do not have a policy that says we need to have an article on whales, for instance. But, in the absence of any valid reason to delete articles, we keep them. To argue for deletion based on the worst that an un-cleaned article can be is not assuming good faith! --Karnesky (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify. You are arguing keep because the article can be maintained in a non-spammy state. Even though you have no intention of touching the article yourself, and when there is clear evidence that no-one else has any interest in maintaining the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I wasn't nominating based on the worst that an "un-cleaned article can be", I was nominating based on the worst that the article actually was until I cleaned it and the worst the article will inevitably be again if it is kept. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of server software is now on my watchlist. Note that all my replies, above, were to intgr & not to you. However, I assume that neither of you has objections to keep the list of server software, now that someone will keep it clean? --Karnesky (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I still maintain my delete vote. Are you planning to maintain all the articles you vote keep on? You do tend to vote keep almost every single time on AFD.
And it doesn't change the fact that content like this is much better served as a category, that Wikipedia was not intended to be a collection of indiscriminate lists, that no-one really has any interest in maintaining these types of articles (your singular self excluded assuming good faith), and that this remains a spam magnetic. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how my !voting record has any relevance here, but I can certainly defend it:
  1. WP:NOTAVOTE
  2. Reiterating previously made points or not giving a reason is therefore pointless
  3. Our deletion guidelines discourage participation when you agree with the consensus or when you don't know anything
  4. When an AfD nom (unlike the way you skillfully handled these articles) and commenters have not done the minimal homework of checking for sources that could establish notability or cleaned up problems, it is easy to add to discussion by pointing this out
  5. I have !voted for deletion and made AfD nominations on occasion.
  6. Yes, many articles that have been kept after a cleanup are on my watchlist.
But, back to the article: This is not a spam magnet. There were only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. I will keep it clean & nobody has indicated how it violates any policy or guideline. I reiterate my suggstion that the server list have a separate discussion so that consensus on this will be clearer. --Karnesky (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. No dispute. However there were numerous external links to open source projects so notable that they never reached a stable version and were abandoned years ago. For instance JabberCom last updated 2002. Or goodwarejabber, a single release in 2007, never updated. Or jabber-net, a single release in July 2008, never updated. Spam spam spam. Whether it is commercial spam or open source spam, doesn't really matter. It is all non-notable.
And it does violate policy. Because all it is is an indiscriminate list. By all means list a few notable examples of XMPP libraries in the XMPP article, with links to reliable third-parties justifying the claim that they are notable. But just having a list of "these are all XMPP libraries" goes against the WP:NOT rule.
And is your only argument for keeping it really "I'll watch it like a hawk to make sure it doesn't fill up with spam? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:43, 4 July 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.
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. JForget 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM Energy Auditing Agency Ltd

TEAM Energy Auditing Agency Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, article does not assert notability; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references given only prove the company's appearance on some gov't lists. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:08, 26 June 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.
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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HR-XML & HR-XML Consortium Inc.

AfDs for this article:
HR-XML Consortium Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
HR-XML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD •

AfD statistics)

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

A library of XML schemas and the organisation that develops them. No evidence of notability offered. HR-XML had a previous discussion three years ago with a "no consensus" result and there has been no improvement to the article since then. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Romuald Restout] Comment on the request for deletion for HR-XML I respectfully disagree with the comment that HR-XML has no technical significance. HR-XML standards are widely used in the HR software field and in adjacent industries. Numerous organizations both for-profit and non-profit (including governmental organizations in Europe) have implemented those standards or are using it in some sort —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrestout (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HR-XML Consortium article. Agree with above comment, HR-XML standards are widely used in the industry and amongst very notable organizations. Initial references have been added to the article, more to come. --Kmcdowell12 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 July 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.
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. JForget 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SafeConsole

SafeConsole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."

Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this product in multiple reliable sources. Two earlier articles were created by this user as part of the same project, and they were both recently deleted via AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeStick and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlockMaster ThemFromSpace 02:08, 26 June 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSSolve

MSSolve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No public references or original research JanT (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As original author of this article I nominated it for deletion as there are no open sources available about this application. While I was creating the article and finding some lovely detailed sources/references/footnotes I only realised half way during writing that I had my VPN to the Microsoft corporate domain active and all the nice detailed information I could find about MSSolve was all MS confidential and not available on the internet: as said: while writing it I wasn't really aware that the VPN to the MS network was active..... Thus now the article is unsourced and could be seen as 'original research' which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. JanT (talk) 21:17, 25 June 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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abaqus

Abaqus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing more than advertising. Tootitnbootit (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google scholar gets nearly 50,000 hits for this software (even if most of those are just to its documentation) from a reasonable range of fields and mostly from refereed journals. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Are you kidding? Delete Abaqus? It is a very notable subject and its notability can be easily established. I cannot find a mechanical engineering journal which has not named this software. Instead of going through the pain of nominating this article for deletion, establish its notability that's too easy. In fact, I'll get to it, now. Fleet Command (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Click Google news search at the top of the AFD. I'll list the first three results

    Dassault Systemes to acquire Abaqus Inc for 413 mln usd cash - Forbes - May 17, 2005

    Company notable enough to be sold for 413 million dollars in US cash, and for the sale of it to be mentioned in Forbes.

    Announces New Multiphysics Technology in Abaqus Release 6.10 - Wall Street Journal - May 24, 2010

    The Wall Street Journal talks about a new release of it.

    STAR-CCM+ and Abaqus Co-Simulation Makes Seamless Fluid-Structure - msnbc.com - May 25, 2010

    MSNBC seems to find it notable enough to talk about. And there are others of course. Plus Google books shows results. [1]

    Dream Focus 09:08, 6 July 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NX Nastran

NX Nastran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:30, 23 June 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.
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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parasolid

Parasolid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 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.
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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEi Nastran

AfDs for this article:
NEi Nastran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference sources have now been added for verification and to qualify notability; POV content has been removed. The number of external links has been reduced to comply with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Teidukonis (talk) 1:15, 8 July 2010 (PDT)

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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluent, Inc.

Fluent, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:31, 23 June 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.
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 keep. no arguments for deletion aside from nom JForget 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANSYS, Inc

AfDs for this article:
ANSYS, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I vote no. If you have a question on citations then the external link is available. ANSYS is a fortune 1000 company that is a major cog in both the regional and national economies. Not sure how this would be a legitimate candidate for deletion, I better check Walt Disney Company, General Electric and Simon Property Group now before they too are also deemed unencylopedic. Hholt01 (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure why this article is being targeted. As with many articles on mid-sized companies, most of the info that's available is the basics: the type of stuff that comes from a business magazine or a company website. While it needs improved, this goes for a massive number of articles.Mr. Vitale (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hint on why the nomination: targeted deletion probably from a competitor of those companies. Canonebeseriouz (talk) 15:12, 28 June 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.
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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack (command-line utility)

Ack (command-line utility) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination - previously deleted via proposed deletion with the reason of "Unreferenced since creation in 2007, fails to assert importance". (Previous version here.) Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it deserve coverage? Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 26 June 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.
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. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FolderPlay

FolderPlay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Article seems promotional noq (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:

1) Nyttend nominated the Article for speady A7, which was wrong. 7:0 consensus in Deletion Review overruled A7. Naturally, Nyttend didn't apologize.

2) The Deletion Review was closed Jclemens before end of 7 days period. This also was wrong thing to do, because already Lankiveil ruled out (on m656 user talk page) that, despite consensus, the discussion will continue for 7 days, saying " the correct amount of time must be allowed to elapse before the page can be undeleted " - and overruling other editors' decisions withou a severe reason is not allowed.

3) The pour article now got saved from false A7, and was returned to its previous status, with the ruling by Schuhpuppe shortly before erroneous A7, saying " I've added some cleanup tags to the article, including one for notability. This is not a request for deletion ". At no time, the Civility-Award winning editor Noq is knocking down the existing cleanup request down (without allowing the required seven days for submitting a better version, as ruled out by Scuhpuppe)

Guys, I'm not suggesting that sub-standard articles should be allowed to stay. I'm just reminding you the guidelines "assume good faith" and "do not bite a novice".

m656 (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


4) It may look like a consensus is forming for deletion, but this is not really so. Not only did the editors SnottyWong and Lankiveil participate in A7 Deletion Review (so shey shouldn't participate in THIS review), but their opinion there was also used in nominating FolderPlay for afd. This is like double or even triple voting.

5) There was no majority supporting afd in the Delete Review. Only 3 out of 7 suggested afd. This is minority view, not majority. (The "prod", suggested by the Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is something completely different).

6) The remaining two editors that suggest "deletion", actually checked not yet written article. The moment I started to write it, it was "speedy deleted" by Editor Nyttend. The not-yet-writeen article spent five days in deleted state, speedy undeleted two days before the end of 7 days, and here you go - at the same day the two Editors are voting for it to be deleted...

7) Do not you know that Wikipedia editing process is intended to be learned by making mistakes? When you see an unwritten article, you are supposed to frendly recommend the fellow writer to take it to User Space. The deletion is only there in order to deal with uncooperative writers. This is a nice opportunity to learn it.

8) Now article is written, and some support of notability is provided. Please ignore the opinions expressed before the artice was written.

9) There is a link to a blog posting by an independent expert in the field of media on mobile, which clearly describes the application as notable.

If the software is not notable, how it has 449,000 results in Google? Almost half million appearances, with many more in Eastern languages...

10) The presented notability reference is not the only one, please do not delete the article and allow it to continue to be written and additional references to be included in normal process of collaborative editing.

m656 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
1) The deletion review only addressed the issue of whether the application of the speedy deletion criteria was correct. The consensus from the review was the article did not qualify under the speedy deletion criteria. That is not an endorsement that that the article meets inclusion criteria. It does mean that in order for the article to be deleted, it should go through a more thorough process which this AFD is.
2) The timing of the closure of the deletion review is irrelevant to this AFD. The outcome of the deletion review was to overturn the speedy deletion. I'd point out that most editors in the review had doubts as to the article being sufficient to survive and AFD.
3) My reading of the comment from Schuhpuppe is that he was assuring you that he wasn't nominating the article for deletion by applying article improvement tags to it. The fact that he tagged it for notability would indicate that he had doubts as to whether the article would meet inclusion criteria.
4) There is no prohibition from the editors you listed to participate in this AFD. And the fact is, they both agreed that speedy deletion was inappropriate and that it should be overturned and brought here. By the way, AFD is not a vote, so they aren't voting, and their participation here isn't doubel or triple voting.
5) The outcome of the deletion was "Restored per consensus that A7 does not apply to this topic. Any editor may PROD or AfD the article at his or her discretion." It's quite clear that noq has used his discretion to nominate this article for deletion. This quite consistent with the outcome of teh deletion review.
6) I don't understand how any editor can check an unwritten article. This AFD did not appear until an article actually existed. And once there is an article, it can be reviewed by any editor participating in an AFD.
7) There is nothing stopping you from copying this article to a draft in your userspace right now. Feel free to copy it to User:M656/Folderplay.
8) I don't know about other editors but the article as it currently is written is what I am basing my opinion on.
9) Blogs aren't reliable sources. And counting google hits doesn't make something notable. Coverage in reliable sources is what is needed, and there has not been any presented. Non-english sources are acceptable so if you know of any please add them.
10) If the presented sources are not the only ones, then you really should add these additional sources. I've looked for them and found none.

-- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If blog review is not good enough - fine, it is not difficult to find a magazine article too. For example, Folder Play is discussed in PC Advisor Magazine (UK)

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=3228710.

m656 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. It is removed. m656 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The issue of notability now is only supported by the article by Review by Patrick Campbell in Nokia N96 http://nokian96.net/2009/07/15/nokia-n96-app-review-folderplay

( Other references only support particular points, like existence of support for a particular format, or existence of support for Chinese. They are not supposed to support notability. )

It was said by Whpq that "Blogs aren't reliable sources". It is only generally correct. For example, coverage in Techcrunch.com or Mashable.com is much better that any published magazine. There are thousands of references to FolderPlay in various unreliable blogs and forums. But Nokia N96 is different. It is like a magazine.

Check this link : http://nokian96.net/author/paddyc1988/ This is the collection of all articles by Patrick Campbell. You can press "next page". There are seventeen pages of articles. It's clear that he is an expert on mobile phones.

Nokia 96 is a strictly controlled publishing environment, more similar to a on-line magazine than to a blog. So it's a borderline notability case and there is no need to delete the article. FolderPlay is very far being hoplessly non-notable. In fact, a 100% proper article almost certainly does exist on the web, only it is difficult to find because of the abundance of downloading sites. Or maybe it is in Chinese, where it is notable for native Chinese support, or in one of languages of Continental Europe, where it is notable for letting people listen to opera on Symbian-running phones.

One should look at at the general practice of Editors *which often accept this level of prominence and notability). Consistency is among the most important components of overall quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not going to be a better Wikipedia if FolderPlay is deleted. For a software that appear at half million pages, the readers do expect to find a short answer to the question "What's that?", written in a objective, neutral tone.

Actually, Improvement of Wikipedia takes precedence over formal criteria. There even is a guidance against deleting valuable material that contributes to Wikipedia.

m656 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - So where is this coverage? I can't find it. And despite your claim that magazine coverage is abundant, no evidence of magazine coverage has been produced. -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't claim magazine coverage is abundant, I do think the magazine coverage probably exists (given abundance of web presence). Meanwhile, the higher end blog coverage may suffice for temporarily not not deleting the article. Since there is no urgent problems with it, and there is a good chance that within say a month it will evolve into a perfect article (including perfectly proper demonstration of notability), why to delete?

m656 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The google coverage is not as vast as it seems at first sight. see this search which shows that if you follow the links it runs out at about 840 hits. probably exists is not really positive enough to establish notability. The sources given in the article at the moment appear to be either blogs or forums which are not considered WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I see no evidence that "coverage probably exists". A lot of google hits is not indicative of coverage in magazines. As for why delete now, it's because the article doesn't meet notability requirements. There is no prohibition against recreating the article in the future if coverage in reliable sources occurs to establish notability. But we don't peer into the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whpk, you have considered multiple notability-supporting

arguments separately, and rejected then one by one. Yet I think they all add up to a reasonably well motivated (by the sum of small factors - when considered together).

m656 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 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.
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 keep. The article has been significantly improved since its nominations and seems to meet basic notability standards. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-DEAS

I-DEAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as yummy spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article needs to be improved to sound less like an ad, but there are pages of possible sources listed on google books for '"i-deas"' that establish notability. --Karnesky (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is beyond repair but the system itself seems to be notable. A fresh start is needed to make this encyclopedic. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the stub. It no longer reads like an ad and asserts notability. It uses only a single reference now. More book references, mentioned above, should be added if they contain relevant material. --Karnesky (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:59, 31 July 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antispyware soft

Antispyware soft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was apparently created to "help people about by alerting them of this virus". The article seems to simply be instructions on how to diagnose and remove the virus, and is not encyclopaedic by any means. The fact that the contributor's purpose was to make others aware of the virus also suggests that it is not notable, and the references are simply from websites (largely user-contributed) which are set up to aide in the removal of many different malware programs, so there is no indication that this is any more notable than any other virus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:44, 24 June 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.
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 AFD closed. No comments from other users and administrators, except the AFD nominator and author of the article. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Fix it Center

Microsoft Fix it Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure this article qualifies for notability (WP:Notability). /HeyMid (contributions) 11:19, 24 June 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.
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. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DesktopWiki

DesktopWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. I couldn't find any references to it but that might be because "desktop wiki" is primarily a generic term. Schuhpuppe (talk) 10:24, 22 June 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.
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. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClipboardMultiSharer

ClipboardMultiSharer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication at all as to why this is important. No sources, third-party coverage, or relevant search results. It doesn't read like WP:ADVERT, but this may be the intent of the page. — Timneu22 · talk 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've enhanced the article along the lines suggested above. Now it contains more information about the utility as well as having more pointers to relevant concepts/information. I believe at this point it does convey some useful information, but it's after all still about that particular utility, and how important the article (ie. is it important enough) is another matter of judgement. Sorry if I wasted anybody's time here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behcet (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 June 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.
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. T. Canens (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Messenger Companion

Windows Live Messenger Companion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks a reliable source. The only source mention in the article is a self-published source, a blog post by the author of this article (Damaster98 (talk · contribs)). Fails to comply with General Notability Guideline. Fleet Command (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with Windows Live Messenger would be a fair and valid outcome. Fleet Command (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any edit to the daily afd page in your list of contributions since June 5... Not a big problem, anyway (the bot is there for this). Tizio 10:58, 22 June 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.
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 keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens PLM Software

Siemens PLM Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 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.
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. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iwebkit

Iwebkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 18:11, 21 June 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.
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 keep. needs some work Tone 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SiSoftware

SiSoftware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable company - only claim to significance is it's product "Sandra". Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and flesh out with information about their flagship product "Sandra". Coverage is not particularly in-depth, but is counterbalanced by the breadth. A google book search provides a lot sources that provide small writeups including Leo Laporte declaring it one his favourites. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For several years Sisoft-Sandra was one of those tools installed on my one or other pc. I don't know if Sisoft or Sandra is more worthy of an article but there is certainly some cultural and historical significance here.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 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.
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. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCore

MediaCore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by a SPA representing the company. I have not found significant coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 21:41, 22 June 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contents restoration software

Contents restoration software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an advertisement for the iCAT software program—there appear to be no Google hits for the others mentioned. PROD was contested by IP. PleaseStand (talk) 00:54, 23 June 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.
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. Rough consensus indicates that the article does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. –MuZemike 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Technologies

Liquid Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
XML Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software company, Fails WP:CORP - the only coverage is not significant, most of it reproductions of press releases. Also adding XML Studio it's main product, article is promotional and also lack of coverage (even less than the links about may indicate as there looks like there are two products called XML Studio) so fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nominator needs to read the guideline that an article isn't spam merely because its subject is a commercial body. Copyediting would be useful and if the time of copyeditors wasn't continually wasted in farcical AfDs, it might even get done. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but XML Studio reads like a sales brochure, product lacks any form of significant coverage and as a result fails WP:GNG, as for the company again no significant coverage, falis WP:GNG - I am unable to see what any amount of Copyediting could help with the notability of both the company and it's software. Codf1977 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 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.
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. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVERT (software)

AVERT (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product with a very limited market and no showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. Contested proposed deletion. Part of a walled garden of promotional articles (see ARES Corporation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRISM (Project Management Software)). Referenced only to in-house sites, and Google News yields no helpful results. No indication that this software product "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the references? Because they are not all to in-house sites. Additionally, A lack of Gnews coverage is not a requirement of notability by Wikipedia. Additionally, these articles are not promotional in nature. I felt that the software had enough information to have their own articles. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the publisher's website, ARES Corporation: internal. A press release based story about the purchase of the product by the US Department of Defense: internal, as well as routine, and from an online trade website with small readership. A press release announcing a new version: internal. Yes, I looked at your sources, and looked for more myself, and came up with nothing that indicates that this product has the kind of long term historical interest to rate an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is a "press release based story"? That is a news article releasted by the Department of Defense. ARES Corporation does not own the Department of Defense and did not write that article. That is an external link and verifiable of it's notability. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Department of Defense buys thousands of products every day. Simply being awarded a defense contract does not elevate a business or its product to historic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 21 June 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.
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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WebStarts

WebStarts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline speedy (created by single purpose account); no reliable third-party sources to establish WP:CORP or WP:WEB notability (the blurb on KillerStartups appears to be a press release written by the company). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Well, I do agree from your perspective I look like an SPA account. I am not though, I am a web designer by profession and have used WebStarts several times. I thought that it was interesting that WebStarts (A prominent company in the industry with over 800,000 hosted sites) does not have a Wikipedia Article, so I created one. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I do know a reliable source when I see one.

1). Webstarts is clearly a valid competitor to companies such as Wix.com, Weebly, Webs.com (formerly FreeWebs), Yola, etc...

2). The KillerStartups review, was not a press release by Webstarts, but in fact a review by KillerStartups Employed Writer 'Fredi'[1]

3). The AppAppeal review is undoubtedly written by AppAppeal (not a press release) AppAppeal states written by "AppAppeal Editor"[2]

  1. ^ http://www.killerstartups.com/Site-Reviews/webstarts-com-free-website-builder
  2. ^ http://www.appappeal.com/app/webstarts/

Connorrhule (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The KillerStartups entry is a trivial mention of the software, and does not cut it as a reference, I'm afraid. The AppAppeal review is more thorough but I doubt that "AppAppeal" is a reliable source - if it does qualify as a reliable source it would possibly be sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of keeps. Since competitors are mentioned, and wiki-linked, I'm not sensing a spam campaign. It could use some better sources establishing notability (I couldn't find any mentions in our library business databases). --Quartermaster (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is lacking in cited sources. Out of curiosity, at what point does a second-party source become "reputable"? I know that AppAppeal is definitely a go-to place for Web Applications and a highly trafficked site. Whether or not it conforms to Wikipedias "Reputable" source list or not I don't know. I consider the biggest sources such as news companies to be the most biased and unreliable personally... And I do not know how it works on Wikipedia, but shouldn't there be a reason other than not 100% reliable sources? Such as: the company doesn't really exist, cause if you do a little research into Webstarts you will find that it isn't something I am making up.

Just to clarify, if a source isn't considered "reputable" by Wikipedia, then the company doesn't exist according to them? I am not trying to be a pain, just curious about all of the little intricacies... If anyone else knows any "reliable" sources for Webstarts please post. Connorrhule (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and verifiable sourcing is a problematic area. You can start down the path of trying to unravel Wikipedia's byzantine group logic by checking out WP:Sources. It's easier to say what IS a verifiable source (e.g., New York Times) than what is not. Check out the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for some of the fun and games. I agree with you that there are topics (such as this one) that may be perfectly reasonable for a Wikipedia entry, but they don't rise to the level of being on the cover of Time Magazine. I get fierce headaches over this whole area. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with this topic, I have put way to much energy into it. This is absurd. Connorrhule (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have just done a bit of research (six pages of ghits) while taking a break. Found only one review that didn't look PR based, and that was brief. The rest appeared to be PR based stuff, or user editable places (like here - Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia...), including the usual Facebook and similar, or blogs and forums. You've put work into the article. Fair enough. We put work into Wikipedia, too. I'm not accusing anyone of spamming. Just pointing out that I haven't found sources that fit the standards so far. Not every company gets an article. (Some don't want articles when they've got them. They find out that anyone can edit and stuff they don't like - and which is well sourced - gets put in.) It's not up to us to find the sources. If the article goes, keep a copy and try again when you've got the needed sources to show that an article is merited. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community. Just like a monastery is, for example. You try joining a monastery and then asking if you can bring your girlfriend in... Peridon (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thank you for what you have done and your time. I will keep a copy if it does get deleted, and in the future post sources if I come across some. Connorrhule (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valid Sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrhule (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since the article hasn't improved from its somewhat promotional tone ('you will'...) and still isn't supplied with what I consider adequate references, I'm going for delete. I expect we'll see it back - hopefully properly referenced and encyclopaedic. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:25, 3 July 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.

Software Proposed deletion

for occasional archiving

Developers

Categories

  1. ^ http://www.100best-web-hosting.com/review/webstarts.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software&oldid=370653409"