Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RayJazz21 (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 15 December 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BeLight Software

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to BeLight Software.

Clear Use of wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "BeLight Software" and related Products. References given appear to be paid reviews that do not confer notability; and various press releases that do not count as reliable sources.
I am also nominating the following Advertisements masquerading as articles:

Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is notability not inherited, to the other spam articles, but Paying $3000-$6000 (and up) (costs of exhibiting at Macworld) for a booth at Macworld Expos;
May be good Marketing, but paying for reviews, does not make for notability[1][2].--Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources are also reliable and independent. Yes, many link to BeLight's site, but do you think that MacWorld or others would allow BeLight to keep false reviews up? That would pose a problem for them and they would surely ask BeLight to remove them. BeLight does not pay for reviews, and actually, BeLight is not paying for a booth at MacWorld this year. And even if it were, what does participation in this huge event have anything to do with "buying" reviews? Apple itself takes part in this event. Perhaps you should show some sort of evidence that BeLight paid for reviews before you slander two companies that are well-known in the Mac world. If you have a problem with the reviews, then delete them, but don't start a firefight to delete the entire pages. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a large nomination with those subarticles and I give it large attention. I find that some of the software articles have a single sources showing notability, our requirements are for multiple sources of notability. A merge to one article might make sense, but that seems like a forced compromise in order to preserve content. The company has zero notability shown for itself. The obvious merge target for the company would be deleted. A merged products article might be ok but since this is a spam attempt I will favor towards deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of Get Backup and Printfolio, all articles have more than one reference. Instead of opting to delete everything, let's figure out what makes the articles "spam" or advertisements and work from there. Seems a bit more rational. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And do you decide what is considered good coverage? According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A software review is plenty more than a "trivial mention," and the sources (MacWorld, MacUser, TopTenReviews, and others) are independent and have "editorial integrity," which is covered in point two of the notability guidelines. Don't assume that a source isn't reliable just because you don't know them by name. Don't forget that Mac users make up roughly 10% of computer users, and if you don't use a Mac, of course you won't recognize names like MacWorld and MacUser. But that doesn't make them unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayJazz21 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The articles in question do not contain marketing gimmicks. They include information about the version history and other aspects of the products. If there are any questions about the reviews in question, then why not just remove those portions, if they seem like advertisement? Naming the articles advertisements and deleting them entirely is going overboard. Point out what exactly makes them advertisements and let's discuss how we can make the articles better and more neutral. On the topic of adding external links, the links that were added to Wikipedia were plausible and written for BeLight users. The article about paper size does not directly correlate to any product that BeLight sells. The article was written for users to have a good reference when preparing their own documents in our programs. Having links on Wikipedia wouldn't do much for BeLight since the Macintosh community includes about 10% of computer users, Wikipedia doesn't allow links to assist in SEO, and because BeLight did not in any way promote any of its products. The LightScribe and Labelflash article was posted together by MacMan77 with a link to an earlier review from Tom's Hardware. Why should the type of website matter when it comes to giving information to people? Who else is going to write an in-depth article about paper size formats? Only those who have some need for this, like users who might find the information useful, and if the information can also add more to the world of Wikipedia, then let it be. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • I've heard this already. That is why we are here to discuss it. The Wikipedia deletion policy states that "advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)" is game for deletion. There is relevant content. There are links to these pages all over Wikipedia. If you look at DiscT@2 or LightScribe, for example, you will find that Disc Cover was the first Mac OS X application to support these two technologies, etc. So according to the deletion policy, these articles should stay. However, the second point of the deletion policy encourages editors to find compromises, ways to make articles useful for WIkipedia users without resorting to deleting them. I suggest we find what needs to be changed to make the articles less like "advertisements masquerading as articles," though these articles are very neutral and are up only as a point of reference. Are we discussing this issue, or are we taking a side, making false claims (MacWorld participation "paying" for reviews), and refusing to listen to others and consider the options? RayJazz21 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeLight_Software&oldid=331779243"