Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hu12 (talk | contribs)
91,877 edits
+
Undid revision 331787992 by Hu12 (talk) Not all created by User:RayJazz21. BeLight Software created by User:Max Naylor
Line 4: Line 4:
:{{la|BeLight Software}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 14#{{anchorencode:BeLight Software}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F{{urlencode:BeLight Software}} AfD statistics])
:{{la|BeLight Software}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 14#{{anchorencode:BeLight Software}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F{{urlencode:BeLight Software}} AfD statistics])
:({{findsources|BeLight Software}})
:({{findsources|BeLight Software}})
Article fails [[WP:NOTABILITY]], [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:SPAM]] and [[WP:COI]]. Article was created by an [[WP:SPA]] account([[User:RayJazz21]]) with no other edits other than related to BeLight Software.
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.
:*Part of a larger spam campaign See [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#BeLight_Software_Spam]]
:*Part of a larger spam campaign See [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#BeLight_Software_Spam]]
Clear Use of wikipedia as a [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].<br>
Clear Use of wikipedia as a [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].<br>

Revision as of 10:53, 15 December 2009

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]

  • Delete, we are not an advertising vehicle. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, you yourself said that the articles are written in a neutral tone without any hints of marketing gimmicks. Take a look at my talk page for more. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The words are "though I must say that your articles are not too promotional, it strongly feels like that is part of your aim here.". Still promotional. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Reviews such as http://www.macworld.com/article/27767/2003/12/macgems.html are editorially independent reviews from MacWorld, a reliable source. The fact that an article is about a company or a commercial product does not make it an advertisement. If MacWorld thinks that an application is sufficiently important to review, then it is notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is for 4 out of 10 .. some are unreferenced, or only to their own page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:31, 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]
  • Still waiting for support of slanderous claims that BeLight Software pays for its reviews and that participation at the MacWorld expo (biggest Mac conference) is in some way "paying" for reviews. Thanks. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the documents linked? As I see it, you have to pay for participation there. So there is a difference between a journal writing a review just because they want to review, or being on such a conference and being reviewed there. And yes, Apple has a booth there as well, but the article about Apple software is not solely based on Macworld reviews, is it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, since when does taking part and paying for a booth at the most popular Mac expo where journalists are abundant qualify as paying for reviews? You pay to participate in the expo, and, if journalists find your product interesting and worth reviewing, they may write about you. Yes, I did read the article and found the following quote very interesting: "The floor of Macworld isn’t only teeming with attendees – it’s also infested by that lovable creature known as the “Mac journalist”. Just like attendees, journalists are scanning the floor to find new and newsworthy items. Mac journalists like David Pogue (seen at right) are great, but even they can’t cover products of which they’re not aware." Of course you pay for exposure, but you do not in any way pay for these people to write about you. That is a ridiculous and false claim that you cannot support. And BeLight Software articles also are not based solely on MacWorld articles. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if there were so many journalists who could write about it, where are all the other reviews then? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do take a look for yourself at www.belightsoft.com at the review pages of each product. Business Card Composer, for example, has over 40 independent reviews and awards from reliable sources. Swift Publisher has over 20. They contain links to the original reviews on the site of the original source, where still available. Don't forget, the company has been around since 2003. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why do I have to go to belightsoft.com for that. Why did you not use those references in the first place to write this article? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may seem like an advertisement :) Reviews are full of language that, if by the developer, could sound like marketing language. Now we are getting somewhere: how to make the articles better. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually not. The only way to make them better is to have more references, and you say they are not suitable. If that is the case, then the articles don't assert notability enough, and should be deleted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I seem to have missed the part about them not being suitable. I could easily use them as sources for things like features, etc. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:30, 15 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]
      • We require significant coverage by third party sources. Short reviews don't do that. Miami33139 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you decide this? MacWorld, MacUser, and other worldwide magazines... Not a reliable source? Well, delete 99% of the software articles on Wikipedia... RayJazz21 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than the source matters. Depth of coverage is part of judging notability. It is correct that most of the software articles on Wikipedia don't belong. Miami33139 (talk) 18:40, 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) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep content. Disagree with the bold assertation that "The company has zero notability shown for itself". My version of Google returns about 900,000 hits for ("BeLight" Mac). Miami33139 et al. are pushing for a very strict interpretation of "significant coverage" (see Wikipedia:Notability (software)‎) for which I simply dont think there is broad consensus. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having Google hits only indicates Search engine optimization or search engine marketing (SEM) which means paid inclusion, not notability. Software applications are products, and fall under the guideline WP:CORP, not the essay you cite. Notable needs to be established and subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.--Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the essay you cite is as follows: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The subject (BeLight Software) has been covered plenty of times in independent, secondary sources. Your lack of knowledge about MacWorld and others (more than likely a result of using a different platform) does not make sources less reliable. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MacWorld is the largest Mac magazine in circulation and is circulated in over seven languages. Apple has taken part in the MacWorld expo every year to this date. Until last year, the CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, announced many of its star products at the famous Apple MacWorld Keynote presentations. In-depth software reviews from reliable, independent sources qualifies as significant in-depth independent coverage. The fact that you don't know the sources means absolutely nothing besides the fact that you may not be an expert of the matter. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Lines like "products have been applauded in the Mac community...[citation needed]" confirm the comments above: the articles are part of a marketing campaign, and the only references are other targets of that marketing campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then such parts of the articles should be edited to make it more neutral, but this is hardly reason to delete them entirely. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged most/all for notability in June. You, nor anyone else was able to do anything about it .. It's thin, RayJazz21, there is not a lot. Please come with more independent reviews. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no problems with notability in June. The reviews are more than a quick mention and from notable independent sources. As Power.corrupts points out, you're asking the community to very, very strictly interpret the notability guidelines. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeLight_Software&oldid=331788276"