Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exif Harvester: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::I verified the content by downloading the software and testing it - so it's verifiable. But some quick poking around on my part found two more sources, plus I'll try to find more. However, I'd like to point out that, so far as I can tell, the company's web site isn't selling anything ( it looks more like a hobbiest site ) and that this is freeware. I'm not sure what harm there is in having this article here, but Wikipedia's own pledge drive ( which I'll be donating to on payday ) says '''Imagine a world in which every single person can share freely in the sum of human knowledge ... Donate today!''' This article is most certainly a part of "the sum of human knowledge." [[User:DigitalEnthusiast|DigitalEnthusiast]] 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
::I verified the content by downloading the software and testing it - so it's verifiable. But some quick poking around on my part found two more sources, plus I'll try to find more. However, I'd like to point out that, so far as I can tell, the company's web site isn't selling anything ( it looks more like a hobbiest site ) and that this is freeware. I'm not sure what harm there is in having this article here, but Wikipedia's own pledge drive ( which I'll be donating to on payday ) says '''Imagine a world in which every single person can share freely in the sum of human knowledge ... Donate today!''' This article is most certainly a part of "the sum of human knowledge." [[User:DigitalEnthusiast|DigitalEnthusiast]] 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::You need to have reliable, third-party sources to write an article from; just downloading it and saying "yeah, it's that" isn't good enough. Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. [[User:Recury|Recury]] 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
:::You need to have reliable, third-party sources to write an article from; just downloading it and saying "yeah, it's that" isn't good enough. Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. [[User:Recury|Recury]] 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::Being freely downloadable by anyone with an internet connection '''does''' make it '''verifiable''', as per the [[scientific method]]. And if Wikipedia defines its mission as freely sharing "in the sum of human knowledge" when it needs money, there's no reason to go deleting useful human knowledge from Wikipedia. In any case, please hang on for a few days, and I'll either find third-party sources, or concede that they don't exist if I can't find any. [[User:DigitalEnthusiast|DigitalEnthusiast]] 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:51, 19 December 2006
Fails WP:V, nothing to write an article from except the company's website. Recury 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I verified the content by downloading the software and testing it - so it's verifiable. But some quick poking around on my part found two more sources, plus I'll try to find more. However, I'd like to point out that, so far as I can tell, the company's web site isn't selling anything ( it looks more like a hobbiest site ) and that this is freeware. I'm not sure what harm there is in having this article here, but Wikipedia's own pledge drive ( which I'll be donating to on payday ) says Imagine a world in which every single person can share freely in the sum of human knowledge ... Donate today! This article is most certainly a part of "the sum of human knowledge." DigitalEnthusiast 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- You need to have reliable, third-party sources to write an article from; just downloading it and saying "yeah, it's that" isn't good enough. Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. Recury 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being freely downloadable by anyone with an internet connection does make it verifiable, as per the scientific method. And if Wikipedia defines its mission as freely sharing "in the sum of human knowledge" when it needs money, there's no reason to go deleting useful human knowledge from Wikipedia. In any case, please hang on for a few days, and I'll either find third-party sources, or concede that they don't exist if I can't find any. DigitalEnthusiast 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- You need to have reliable, third-party sources to write an article from; just downloading it and saying "yeah, it's that" isn't good enough. Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. Recury 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I verified the content by downloading the software and testing it - so it's verifiable. But some quick poking around on my part found two more sources, plus I'll try to find more. However, I'd like to point out that, so far as I can tell, the company's web site isn't selling anything ( it looks more like a hobbiest site ) and that this is freeware. I'm not sure what harm there is in having this article here, but Wikipedia's own pledge drive ( which I'll be donating to on payday ) says Imagine a world in which every single person can share freely in the sum of human knowledge ... Donate today! This article is most certainly a part of "the sum of human knowledge." DigitalEnthusiast 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)