Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sqlnotes

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 Delete; even as one keep said "keep in mind this is pre-release software". JERRY talk contribs 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sqlnotes

Sqlnotes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about a software product that does not establish its notability via independent reliable sources. Accordingly, the article fails the verifiability guideline and should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As one of the few Ecco Pro replacement software (Ecco Pro being an immensely famous PIM and outliner, but which development has been abandoned), SQLNotes deserves to be mentioned and described. Also, even if SQLNotes is relatively recent, it has been the object of lengthy debates in various forums -- for example at DonationCoder.com (a pretty serious Website dedicated to software and technology): http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=10432.0. Even more importantly, it got nominated among the "Favorite Software Discoveries" in the "Best of the Web 2007" section at DonationCoder.com (http://www.donationcoder.com/2007/index1.php where). And, finally, let me bring your attention to other similar software that are being mentioned on Wikipedia (like the great Keynote, TiddlyWiki , etc.) which independent sources cannot be considered much more "academically reliable". —Mchapleau (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete pre WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ecco Pro. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merging with Ecco Pro is not really an option. It was tried but content was removed. Some Ecco Pro users, mostly consultants making their business out of Ecco consulting, see SQLNotes as a competition and have systematically qualified it of vaporware (see yahoo EccoPro and Ecco_Pro user groups around the may 2007 timeframe such as this one). Finally, while inspired from Ecco, SQLNotes is quite different and appeals to a different set of users. PPLandry (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V due to a lack of sources and there is not even a claim to notability. There is not more here than an advert. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A reference was added. Please re-evaluate the proposed deletion in the light that this is un-released software. PPLandry (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on the description of DonationCoder.com, I also think that it is not a sufficiently independent or reliable source, any more so than other web forums would be. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • DonationCoder has a membership of 106,000 members, 96,000 posts on 11,200 topics. It is a source of reliable information. Consider other pages alike EverNote, GoBinder, Keynote (notetaking software) before deciding to delete this page. I don't see how these page can meet those requirements if this page does not meet it.PPLandry (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What is DonationCoder's editorial board like? How are articles reviewed before they are posted? Sheer membership does not make a source reliable. Secondly, other articles exist; that's not a factor in the discussion of this article (though you're welcome to nominate them for AfD if you think they also don't meet the requirements). —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What needs to be changed for this page be acceptable ? Keep in mind that this is pre-release software.PPLandry (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability and provide verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (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.