Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixel image editor

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 of the debate was Keep. Article needs better evidence of notability and could use a rewrite to de-brochureise it, but the consensus for Keep seems clear to me. Agree with Alphachimp's (et al) criticisms of the article as it is now, and if it isn't fixed in a few months, that's certainly reason to renominate, but the consensus is clear to me at this time. --++Lar: t/c 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pixel image editor

Moving nomination from the CFD page. The original nomination is below - EurekaLott 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The page describes a commercial software product and was probably set up by the developer itself --> misplaced advertising Naui 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This page was not setup by developer itself, he just made some corrections time to time. I think this software is not real commercial software.... 1) it's very cheap, 2) it's a wonder how it works on all those platforms and is more portable than Java. Also there are numerous articles about commercial packages including those from Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, Microsoft etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.168.106.132 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Article is not offensive or advertising. I guess it's interesting as well. Keep it in my opinion, as this page is linked from Bitmap graphics comparison article. ((unsigned|87.197.131.92}}
• Delete This page reads and is formatted just like an advertisement. The screenshots and system requirements seal the deal. See WP:NOT. It might be helpful to compare this is a legit article, such as Windows XP --Alphachimp ^talk 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but edit The page is not pushy or derogatory of other products, and is perfectly comprable to Photoshop in listing features, supported OS's, and showing screenshots of the interface. I recommend adding a section listing the competitors, as has been done on the Photoshop page to prevent a possible bias. Xiliquiern 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, edit detail/POV - my fail on notability though. Ace of Risk 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; software seems to be pretty unique in its market. The article ought to be improved, though. Perle 18:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve as per Xiliquiern. Algebra 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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.