Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Utilities: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:58, 1 November 2017

Remote Utilities

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, all sources are press releases. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes a software product as it is represented by the company that manufactures it. The page is not supposed to claim that the information provided by the company is necessarily accurate. It can only verify that the company says what it says about the program. There was no scientific research conducted with the purpose to verify that the features that the developer company claims Remote Utilities has really exist. ConradSallian (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds to me that it might arguably fail WP:V as well as WP:N.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the Gnews search link above does reveal some independent reviews, particularly from PC World. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are both press-releases and independent reviews. If press-releases are the problem and independent reviews aren't, then the references to press-releases should be removed. Although, strictly speaking, the fact that certain information (such as feature descriptions) comes from the manufacturer does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer is an "unreliable source". Similarly, the fact that information comes from an independent review does not necessarily mean that that independent source is reliable. ConradSallian (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:57, 1 November 2017 edit ConradSallian (talk \| contribs) 97 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:58, 1 November 2017 edit undo ConradSallian (talk \| contribs) 97 edits →‎Remote Utilities Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	*That said, the Gnews search link above ''does'' reveal some independent reviews, particularly from ''[[PC World]]''. [[User:Shawn in Montreal\|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal\|talk]]) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)		*That said, the Gnews search link above ''does'' reveal some independent reviews, particularly from ''[[PC World]]''. [[User:Shawn in Montreal\|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal\|talk]]) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

	There are both press-releases and independent reviews. If press-releases are the problem and independent reviews aren't, then the references to press-releases should be removed. Although, strictly speaking, the fact that certain information (such as feature descriptions) comes from the manufacturer does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer is an "unreliable source". ~~On the contrary~~, the fact that information comes from an independent review does not necessarily mean that that independent source is reliable. [[User:ConradSallian\|ConradSallian]] ([[User talk:ConradSallian\|talk]]) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)		There are both press-releases and independent reviews. If press-releases are the problem and independent reviews aren't, then the references to press-releases should be removed. Although, strictly speaking, the fact that certain information (such as feature descriptions) comes from the manufacturer does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer is an "unreliable source". Similarly, the fact that information comes from an independent review does not necessarily mean that that independent source is reliable. [[User:ConradSallian\|ConradSallian]] ([[User talk:ConradSallian\|talk]]) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)