Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softpedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Softpedia
Tagged for deletion as spam, deleted, that was rejected by DRV, so here you have it. This article has no sources, has been tagged for cleanup since November 2006 without any evident progress on that, and the sole asserion of notability rests on Alexa - which, as we all know, is not reliable. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable site with sources available see [1]. I would give it time to develop especially given the Deletion Review. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete, but I'll change that to keep if I'm convinced. I looked at LexisNexis and found nothing, and skimmed that Google News link and didn't really see anything that fits under WP:RS. But convince me I'm wrong and I'll change my vote. Rockstar (T/C) 03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Needs some cleanup and sourcing, but the Alexa rank certainly shows this to be a major site. StuffOfInterest 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
WeakKeep per improvements. I have added another reference to the article. There are a number of other sources out there, which I cannot access as they are by subscription only. In terms of sourcing, the article really is borderline. However, I am inclined to think this is due to my inability to find/access available sources rather than a total lack of sources for a top 500 website in existence since 2001. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)- But neither of the sources you added fall under WP:RS. Alexa doesn't mean anything and the other source you used was a Press Release... I do have full access to LexisNexis and couldn't find anything. Rockstar (T/C) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly that. One unreliable, one not independent equals no independent, reliable non-trivial sources. And "keep and clean up" is also a pointless !vote since this has been tagged for cleanup for months with no result. Looks notable? Sure. Looks it, but there's no supporting evidence. Maybe the Alexa rank is due to their hosting of binaries with questionable copyright... Guy (Help!) 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa, wait ... First, could you please explain why Alexa "doesn't mean anything"? Alexa is surely a valid source for Alexa ratings (it's not being used in the article in any other context). Second, I'm not entirely sure the other source is a press release. PR Newswire publishes both press releases and news articles and I think the source I've noted belongs in the latter category. Third, even if it is a press release, it is not a press release of Softpedia, and is therefore independent of Softpedia. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alexa rankings do not mean notability. That's what I meant. And yes, PR Newswire does print news as well as press releases, but what you provided is a press release. And it doesn't matter that it was written by another company, it is still not a reliable source. Have you ever written a press release? I have. If you mention another company in your press release, you must work closely with that company to make sure that all interests are aligned. Press releases, in any form, are therefore not independent nor reliable. This article still does not fulfill WP:N or WP:RS. Rockstar (T/C) 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, yes, Alexa rankings don't automatically mean notability, but the Alexa source itself is not unreliable. Given your comment, I am slightly modifying my suggestion ... I'll probably revisit the discussion after a few days to see if anyone was able to dig up additional sources; I'm finding it hard to believe that a top 500 website (out of tens of millions) has zero published works about it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's a reason AfDs are open for five days. As far as I'm concerned, if nothing surfaces in five days, it should be deleted. You know as well as I do that WP isn't a crystal ball, so we can't base our judgment on what might happen in the future. Rockstar (T/C) 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're in agreement. If nothing surfaces within 5 days, I will withdraw my recommendation to keep the article. As much as I may find it strange that there are no readily available sources about the topic (at least ones that I could find), the only thing that matters in the end is what we can prove. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, great! Yeah, don't get me wrong -- I think it's weird too. Something's fishy if a top 500 Alexa site doesn't have any reliable sources written about it... Rockstar (T/C) 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reliable sources: 1 2. Good enough? [I'd call Alexa 3, but apparently you don't consider that a reliable source?] anthony 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty sure that a site-sponsored review including a message from the Softpedia folks isn't a reliable source. And Alexa is a resource for information, but not a reliable source. Rockstar (T/C) 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Pretty sure that a site-sponsored review including a message from the Softpedia folks isn't a reliable source." What do you mean by site-sponsored? Softpedia didn't pay to have that review. It's not even a fully positive review. Yes, they give site owner a section to provide comments, but I don't see how that excludes the review from being a reliable source. "And Alexa is [...] not a reliable source." Why do you feel Alexa isn't a reliable source?
- I think these three sources are clearly enough for a short article on the website. There is clearly a large and growing group of people who want to know more about Softpedia [2], and I think it would be unfair to give them a blank page when we can at least say a few things which we know to be true. anthony 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we can judge what people want to read. I think we can judge what our guidelines for notability state, and as of right now, they state that this article fails such guidelines. Rockstar (T/C) 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase it this way: if we're going to ignore our policies and guidelines, why have AfDs in the first place? We're here to discuss the current merits of the article, not what it *might* become or whether you like it or people *might* want to read about it. And as it stands, the article should be deleted. Rockstar (T/C) 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The McAfee review is independent. So what if Softpedia was allowed to make a comment? Defendants are allowed to make comments during their trials ... that doesn't make the judge any less independent. The article currently has four references: 3 are independent (McAfee, Kraynak, and Alexa) and 2 are unquestionably reliable (McAfee and Kraynak). You and Guy stated above that "Alexa" is not a reliable source but haven't exactly specified why ... we agreed that Alexa rankings alone do not establish notability, but I don't see why the Alexa source is unreliable. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit that the article isn't a greatest, but it's fine as a stub-class or start-class article (it still needs more rigorous sourcing, of course). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's no point arguing further. Sure, keep the article for now but if it's not updated with real reliable sources (you can infer that Alexa is not a reliable source if you read WP:RS) in two weeks or a month, I'm coming back at it with a vengence. Rockstar (T/C) 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am quite familiar with WP:RS. In fact, in looking at it again, I noted that it states that reliable sources are ones where the authors are "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". I think it's safe to say that the authors of Alexa Internet are authoritative in relation to their own rankings. However, even if one discounts the Alexa source for some reason, there are still the McAfee and Kraynak sources. I really don't see why you'd have a vengeance against this article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's no point arguing further. Sure, keep the article for now but if it's not updated with real reliable sources (you can infer that Alexa is not a reliable source if you read WP:RS) in two weeks or a month, I'm coming back at it with a vengence. Rockstar (T/C) 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit that the article isn't a greatest, but it's fine as a stub-class or start-class article (it still needs more rigorous sourcing, of course). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The McAfee review is independent. So what if Softpedia was allowed to make a comment? Defendants are allowed to make comments during their trials ... that doesn't make the judge any less independent. The article currently has four references: 3 are independent (McAfee, Kraynak, and Alexa) and 2 are unquestionably reliable (McAfee and Kraynak). You and Guy stated above that "Alexa" is not a reliable source but haven't exactly specified why ... we agreed that Alexa rankings alone do not establish notability, but I don't see why the Alexa source is unreliable. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty sure that a site-sponsored review including a message from the Softpedia folks isn't a reliable source. And Alexa is a resource for information, but not a reliable source. Rockstar (T/C) 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reliable sources: 1 2. Good enough? [I'd call Alexa 3, but apparently you don't consider that a reliable source?] anthony 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, great! Yeah, don't get me wrong -- I think it's weird too. Something's fishy if a top 500 Alexa site doesn't have any reliable sources written about it... Rockstar (T/C) 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're in agreement. If nothing surfaces within 5 days, I will withdraw my recommendation to keep the article. As much as I may find it strange that there are no readily available sources about the topic (at least ones that I could find), the only thing that matters in the end is what we can prove. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's a reason AfDs are open for five days. As far as I'm concerned, if nothing surfaces in five days, it should be deleted. You know as well as I do that WP isn't a crystal ball, so we can't base our judgment on what might happen in the future. Rockstar (T/C) 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, yes, Alexa rankings don't automatically mean notability, but the Alexa source itself is not unreliable. Given your comment, I am slightly modifying my suggestion ... I'll probably revisit the discussion after a few days to see if anyone was able to dig up additional sources; I'm finding it hard to believe that a top 500 website (out of tens of millions) has zero published works about it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alexa rankings do not mean notability. That's what I meant. And yes, PR Newswire does print news as well as press releases, but what you provided is a press release. And it doesn't matter that it was written by another company, it is still not a reliable source. Have you ever written a press release? I have. If you mention another company in your press release, you must work closely with that company to make sure that all interests are aligned. Press releases, in any form, are therefore not independent nor reliable. This article still does not fulfill WP:N or WP:RS. Rockstar (T/C) 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa, wait ... First, could you please explain why Alexa "doesn't mean anything"? Alexa is surely a valid source for Alexa ratings (it's not being used in the article in any other context). Second, I'm not entirely sure the other source is a press release. PR Newswire publishes both press releases and news articles and I think the source I've noted belongs in the latter category. Third, even if it is a press release, it is not a press release of Softpedia, and is therefore independent of Softpedia. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly that. One unreliable, one not independent equals no independent, reliable non-trivial sources. And "keep and clean up" is also a pointless !vote since this has been tagged for cleanup for months with no result. Looks notable? Sure. Looks it, but there's no supporting evidence. Maybe the Alexa rank is due to their hosting of binaries with questionable copyright... Guy (Help!) 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- But neither of the sources you added fall under WP:RS. Alexa doesn't mean anything and the other source you used was a Press Release... I do have full access to LexisNexis and couldn't find anything. Rockstar (T/C) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The Softpedia website is referenced many times by many publications as can be seen from the Google news link above, this shows it to be well known and notable. - hahnchen 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious keep, but looking at the talk page there seem to be one or more persistent POV pushers editing this article. We need to come up with a way to keep them from ruining the article. anthony 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Certainly has the potential to be a good article. It just needs proper sourcing. GarryKosmos 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Needs some better sourcing, but it's up there with Download.com and Betanews/Fileforum as a source of program reviews and files. Ace of Risk 19:36, 25 April 2007 (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.
