Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Software on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Software. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Software}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Software.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page


Contents

[edit] Software

[edit] Remote Administrator Control

Remote Administrator Control (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Yet another developer trying to use Wikipedia as a billboard for their non-notable remote admin software. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable software that's only reference is to the authors site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no claim of notability --T-rex 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Transformation Pack

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Vista Transformation Pack Articles for deletion/Vista Transformation Pack (2nd nomination)
Vista Transformation Pack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previous nomination was closed as No consensus after one Keep and two Delete, and should have been relisted. The article has zero sources that assert any sort of notability. The only assertion of notability at all is the line "[...] is a popular choice for Windows XP users that prefer the Windows Vista appearance". The rest is in-universe information. This is Stardocks unimportant little brother. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Leaning Weak Keep because of the RS coverage that includes the New York Times and Jerusalem Post, among others. I believe that could be used to expand the article. That said, I don't know that it will ever be able to sustain an article and it may be more appliacable within an article on Vista so to that end I say merge to Microsoft Vista and redirect, it may be a viable search term. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 08:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Got an argument for your vote? — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AniTuner

AniTuner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software does not appear to have received any independent, reliable, substantial coverage; suggest deletion on grounds of WP:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Neato-torpedo, but also entirely NN. --Thetrick (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete – It has received independent – in-depth coverage - from reliable sources, as shown here [1]. However, with only two reviews, and one not that complementary, I say delete. ShoesssS Talk 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Y.A.S.U.

Y.A.S.U. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent third party sources to speak of. Utterly non notable. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete — No evidence of notability. macytalk 01:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect per Voidvector's logic. Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ulteo

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ulteo Articles for deletion/Ulteo (2nd nomination)
Ulteo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The current version of the article was rewritten by user Getupstandup1 (talk · contribs) and is substantially different from the version which was deleted after the first AfD. Note: as per the recent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8#Ulteo discussion, this nomination does not promote a specific outcome. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Extensive references turn out to be the either the distro's website, PR blurbs, or pre-release reviews. For now its J.A.L.D. in beta. Thetrick (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What is "J.A.L.D."? — Athaenara ✉ 10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just Another Linux Distro. They proliferate like tribbles. --Thetrick (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you _just don't know_ what you are talking about. Ulteo have three main products, including a full desktop that runs within a web browser, and a virtualized system that runs on Windows. So that's Just Not Another Linux Distro. Vautnavette (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The new article about Ulteo is well referenced, and balanced. Reviews have been done on software products that have been released, not only on press-releases, so I disagree with the comment abobe. Most articles about Ulteo in the specialized IT press have been are serious and documented. The number of references in Google show that Ulteo is already well known and used by many people. I think that the new article doesn't meet any Wikipedia criteria for deletion, or you have to delete most Wikipedia article about software products. Vautnavette (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) — Vautnavette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I don't understand such harrassement about Ulteo! The new article meets Wikipedia criterias about references and notability. Just consider the product tests by Linux.com, Fosswire and ArtsTechnica: you get three major specialized and respected websites that have tested and reviewed some Ulteo products recently. That's only for well-known news sites because there are hundreds other websites and blogs that have reviewed or talked about the project. So what's the problem? Why would Ulteo be a problem while G.h.o.s.t or DesktopTwo (that have 10x times less Google entries than Ulteo) have their entries in Wikipedia and nobody is concerned about that? Please keep the current article: it's informative and meets Wikipedia criterias to live. Getupstandup1 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) — Getupstandup1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep we need an Ulteo article on Wikipedia! The new article is good, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petertribou (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
— Petertribou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep It has corespondents in 8 or 9 languages, seems well structured or sourced. Noting that it's a pretty dirty trick in trying to disregard oppinions because of low number of contribs pointed out at those who vote keep. --Trucizna (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The SPA (single-purpose account) tag is not used to disregard opinions, but is used to help the closing admin. Keep in mind this is not a vote. I found this discussion because I was browsing contribs of newly created users. It is suspicious and a sign of a possible sock/meat puppet when a user is created and immediately voices an opinion in an AfD. swaq 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As you just wrote, this is not a vote. Actually I don't see what's suspicious if some users are creating a wikipedia account to participate to this discussion. Or are you claiming that different accounts have been opened with the same IP address? Vautnavette (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is possible that they are the same person or someone who was asked to voice a certain opinion. It is also possible that several independent people just happened to come across the article immediately after it was tagged for deletion, noticed the tag, and decided to create a new account to ask to keep the article. swaq 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article on Ulteo is fair and balanced. I do not see any valid reason to delete this except that someone is trying to suppress the information for their own agenda. --buswellj —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
— buswellj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Articles are not kept for being "fair and balanced", they must show notability. swaq 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, and Ulteo meets Wikipedia criterias for notability Vautnavette (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article still has WP:RS issues. By the above tagged users there is a visible conflict of interest here. Part of this is that many of the references fall into the self published areas. The software is just not notable. I watch the Web desktop which is how I got to this article. Other editors and myself are trying to go though the list (slowly but surely) to make sure that all the noted articles are following the Wiki policies. In short, this article is about the same not notable software and has the same source issues as the last one.--Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPath this wikipedia article, the Ulteo article has a lot more valid references. So how come the rPath article isn't up for deletion, when it is taking precedence over an actual (far more notable) rpath linking computer term???? Some bias / motive here against Ulteo??? Wikipedia is a reference, Ulteo is obviously a notable and becoming more notable on a daily basis solution, especially with highly visible open source people like Gael Duval behind the project!. I think you need to explain why you think its not notable?
  • http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ulteo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment It looks like the WP:RS issues have been taken care of. Unfortunately, I still feel that Ulteo is not notable. Also, please be carefull with the other stuff exists argument. --Pmedema (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I disagree with you. I think that all the discussions here, the Ulteo article and new entries, have shown that there are many independent and recognized websites that have tested Ulteo in a disinterested perspective (ie they don't have any link with the Ulteo project itself). Additionally, new links show interest from press and Ulteo users activity in several countries in the world, including the USA, European countries, and a quick search shows other countries, including China and Russia. This clearly shows that Ulteo is now notable software. Petertribou (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Delete I have gone through every reference on the Ulteo article. In order to be notable, the article must have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Every single source is at least some sort of technology site, with most being blogs and/or more specific to open source/linux.
  • ulteo.com - not independent
  • distrowatch.com - not significant coverage, not independent (linux site)
  • linux.com - not independent (linux site)
  • fosswire.com - self-published (blog), not independent (open source site)
  • downloadsquad.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
  • polishlinux.org - self-published (blog), not independent (linux)
  • arstechnica.com - low coverage (more on OpenOffice than Ulteo), semi-independent (technology)
  • news.cnet.com - blog, not significant coverage (short), semi-independent (technology)
  • ghacks.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
  • slashdot.org - not significant coverage (summary of other articles), semi-independent (technology)
  • virtualization.com - not significant coverage (short), self-published (blog), not independent (Linux/Open source)
  • linux.sys-con.com - not independent (linux)
  • computeractive.co.uk - not significant coverage (brief summary), semi-independent (technology)
  • crn.com - semi-independent (technology)
  • channelregister.co.ux - not significant coverage (mentions Ulteo in passing), semi-independent (technology)
  • blogsearch.google.com - not a source
swaq 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, are you on some kind of power trip? Based on your logic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_rooney this article on Wayne Rooney (famous football player) isn't notable because all the references are by SPORTS MEDIA! You can't say that the open source / IT media sites are not independent sources because they are linux sites!! Same goes (using your logic of classification above), that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears is invalid, because the references are all ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA sites, and by your logic, not independent! I think you have the wrong idea of what independent means, should be (via common sense), not an Ulteo, or Ulteo employee's site. But ruling out technology meia for a technology article is just biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:14, June 12, 2008 (UTC)
  • "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective" (Wikipedia:Independent sources, see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Regarding your Wayne Rooney and Britney Spears arguments, I would recommend reading the "Individual merit" section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. swaq 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The individual merit section doesn't apply, you might want to re-read it yourself. It doesn't apply because I wasn't commenting on the content of the other articles themselves but on the logic being used to disregard the resources used to substantiate the Ulteo article. The logic is flawed. My point was that if you disregard technology media for technology articles, the same would apply for sports references to sports related articles, which is absurd. You want a reference in a Home and Gardening magazine on Ulteo? Its a bit odd too that nobody has mentioned why the rPath article isn't up for deletion?? It being less notable and having less references?? Buswellj (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are cherry picking the definitions of independent source to fit your argument. The full text states : An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release. This is not to disregard the role such primary source material can play in writing an article, but serves to ensure an article can be written from a balanced viewpoint. It also ensures articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing. The idea is that articles which don't reference outside sources be placed in clean-up via an independent sources template, and if there ultimately prove to be no independent sources, the article may be listed for deletion."
  • This description indicates that an independent source would be a third party coverage of Ulteo, and not a press release, the site itself or an employee. This *INVALIDATES* almost all of your "not independent" comments above, giving Ulteo plenty of valid references. Lets play with some common sense here. rPath article though isn't valid by this . Buswellj (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to AfD rPath. swaq 18:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Will do. Based on your logic we can do the same for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_supra right? All the references there are from either toyota or car focused sources (not independent by your logic). Right?? Buswellj (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if you include the ones I listed as "semi-independent" (the technology ones), there is only one (crn.com) that doesn't fail the other tests (reliable, significant coverage). The notability guidelines call for multiple independent reliable sources. swaq 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've already shown your logic is very flawed. All of the references with the exception of ulteo.com are valid ones, you are again cherry picking. Dunno what your beef is with Ulteo, but if this article gets deleted the Toyota Supra one needs to go too. Which we both know is absurd. Buswellj (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • John, I think you are misinterpreting my logic. Being independent is only part of a reference that shows notability. The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent. Others fail significant coverage and being reliable (personal blogs are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards), with the exception of the crn.com one. I do not have a beef with Ulteo. I hadn't heard of it until today. I am an avid open-source user and have used several different Linux distributions, so I have nothing against Linux or open source either. Just out of curiosity, why did you pick the Supra article to mention? swaq 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Your logic is *VERY CLEAR* I'm not misinterpreting it at all. Above you have listed all the various references. Beside Linux.com (feature article by a journalist), you have not independent. You clearly have this logic of linux / open source site equals not independent. This logic is WRONG per the plain example in Wikipedia's own guidelines. If it were correct, then all the Toyota Supra references are NOT independent, and that article should be AfD'd. So if you still think Ulteo article should be deleted on that logic, you should submit the AfD for Toyota Supra. You won't because your logic makes no sense. All of those references are fine, and Ulteo is notable (not just by independent references, but my complaint is that you have said Linux media sources are not independent, which would be like me saying Car and Driver is not an independent source for information on cars!!). Thats nonsense. The problem here is you have misinterpreted the meaning of disinterested perspective, read the Wikipedia link you posted, check the example, then re-example each of the Ulteo sources. You will see that they are by independent third parties, and are not reprints of PRs or documentation. I'm sure we both have better things to be doing here, so please indicate whats wrong with the Linux.com article. Buswellj (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed your comments you mixed in with mine. Please discuss each link in your own comments to make it clear who is saying what and for readability purposes. I also don't appreciate the personal attack. See my reply to MahasonaLK below on my reasoning for my logic on why I don't think linux/open source sites are independent. You obviously have some personal agenda so I won't argue any further with you. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My question to you, Swaq, is: what do you have against the Ulteo project? What you are writing is really quite odd. I mean: Ulteo is a project that 1) has been supported by a number of users for a long time 2) has released several products in the past 6 months that catched much attention and tests from IT press 3) gets 600,000 entries in Google 4) has entries in other languages (Ulteo is global, I can even find articles in Russian and Chinese about it!). So where's the problem about notability? Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_OS - nobody complains about it. You don't. And it's just a very early-stage project. Vautnavette (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have nothing against the Ulteo project, as I have already stated. 1) Number of users does not necessarily make something notable. 2) I'd like to see another independent reliable source or two with some significant coverage, something other than blogs. 3) Number of Google hits does not make something notable, see Google test. 4) I'm not sure what the other language Wikipedias use for inclusion criteria. However we can't just say that Wikipedia in X language has it so Wikipedia in Y language should too, that can quickly become a circular argument. Browser OS has a "may not meet the general notability guideline" tag at the top of it, so I don't see how you are saying no one is complaining about it. Each article should be considered against the guidelines/policies, and not compared to what other articles exist, see: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I'd like to state again that I have nothing against Ulteo. It seems like a neat little OS, and I'd happily change my mind if I saw some more reliable sources on it. swaq 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Swaq wrote: "blogsearch.google.com - not a source": frankly, do you want me to copy-paste all the _independant_ entries from blogsearch.google.com to the Ulteo article on Wikipedia? Vautnavette (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A list of websites is not really a source. I doubt you will find many, if any, non self-published articles using a blog search. swaq 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reading all your comments, I understand that you have nothing against the "candidate for deletion" article, but you are just against an article about Ulteo in Wikipedia. So you would vote for deletion for any article about Ulteo because you think that it's not a notable project. At the same time, when you answer John about the "Supra" article you are arguing that there are "semi-independant" sources that can be considered as independent sources (quote: "The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent.") So I understand that when you are supporting a project, you have not the same way of thinking about Wikipedia guidelines. But when reading again Wikipedia's definition of notability, I understand that Ulteo meets each of them, or we don't understand things the same way. So please give the new Ulteo article a chance to live. Even if it's not perfect, it will improve with time, for sure. Vautnavette (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Swaq : Here is another independant reliable source : [2]. By the way, did you read whole arstechnica.com coverage? It's not about "openoffice.org", it's about "online openoffice.org". Regarding your "not independent - linux" argument, when wikipedia guidelines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", subject here is "ulteo", not "linux". MahasonaLK (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link, that looks fine. I did read the whole arstechnica.com article, and I did notice that it was talking about online openoffice.org. However the subject in question is Ulteo, not particular aspect of it, so I don't think that can qualify for establishing notability. Still a good source though. My opinion that a linux site is not independent is because I think they are still too close to the subject and are likely to mention almost every distribution, whether notable or not. I'm changing my vote to neutral. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Swaq: I would suggest you refrain from engaging in reviews of Open Source, Technology or Linux related articles on Wikipedia. You clearly have some bias against open source focused media outlets. Your logic can be applied to Edmunds.com, or Car and Driver about cars. These sites are going to look, review and cover what they feel is of interest and notable to their readers. Just because a media outlet is focused on Open Source does not make it more or less a resource. I apologize if making comments about the Toyota Supra felt like a personal attack, I was simply putting things into a perspective you might easily understand. Buswellj (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have nothing against open source. I use open source software almost exclusively at home. I did not say that open-source/linux sites are not valid references, only that they are questionable as independent, disinterested sources. I was not referring to your comments about the Supra as a personal attack, and I don't understand why you think I care so much about that article. I was specifically referring to this edit where you said "this guy is on crack". swaq 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is good and informative. And I think that Ulteo is a notable project according to what I can read on the web (besides that I know it!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.122.60.126 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note I have added (to the Ulteo article) several new links to Ulteo tests, and added an "Interview" section. I hope it's accurate to post that here. Vautnavette (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OHHHHhh... that's why there are so many WP:SPA's around. I feel that WP:NOSOLICIT has been violated. [3] I had to translate some. There has been solicitation from the www.Ulteo.com website forums. --Pmedema (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think the dates look quite right. -- Swerdnaneb 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment you don't like Ulteo and will try _anything_ to get the article deleted, right? (check what you are writing about though: the thread is date April, 4th) Vautnavette (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable project Towel401 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JSONP

JSONP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software function. Fails WP:N Could be merged with JSON but I don't have the detailed knowledge to do so. ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete I don't believe there is enough information in the article now to merge in with JSON. Arienh4(Talk) 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Merging could be possible, but the article lacks context, so I'm not so sure if this would be possible. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as it's pretty content light, that shouldn't be much of a task. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Updated the page to root page JSON, with redirect to the main page. It might need some polish, I think there should be no problem with the move. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoft pdf printer

Reasoft pdf printer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable software ju66l3r (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete just like the image converter I can find lots of ghits but, they seem to be just download sites and the like which suggests non-notability from lack of third party coverage. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paintbrush (software)

Paintbrush (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software article full of images which should also probably be deleted. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable software, lists itself as a copy of other software, and no references. TN‑X-Man 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just being open source isn't notability. Probably best to redirect to Paint (software), as Paintbrush is the former name of the Windows equivalent. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doesn't show notability. Soxred 93 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above WP:N. Amor amor (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - appears to be notable (even if no real claim is made), although article is very poorly written --T-rex 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes it "appear" notable, exactly? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:39, 11 June 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.

[edit] TAGES

TAGES (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was lately tagged CSD G11 as blatant advertising and speedy deleted, since the text makes no assertion of significance. An editor who worked on it is most unhappy about this. This article is wonderfully written and informative but may not belong on Wikipedia because it clearly fails WP:CORP, given independent and reliable coverage on this is quite thin. So where is the fuzzy line on these IT articles? I like them a lot (too much), so I get kinda wary about keeping things like this. On the other hand, IT coverage is one of Wikipedia's many strengths. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Confused comment. It was me who restored the article, though it seems as if Gwen may have been about to do so herself. The complaint she received about deletion was bitter, rather ill-tempered, and perhaps rude; but on looking at the article I had to agree that any promotion was not blatant (indeed, it didn't strike me as promotional) and I also thought that the author's complaint of a systemic pro-GNU-etc bias might have something to it; after all, it does seem that every Linux distro, however obscure, has its own article (a fact that I as a reader find very welcome). The article is primarily about a product, and therefore WP:CORP does not directly apply; further, if it did apply it would be a guideline, not a policy. Perhaps the best thing to do is for somebody to source a moderate degree of the content to independent references. Oh, if the article does remain I think it should be retitled "Tagès".-- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I still think it looks like an advertisement more then anything, and tried removing some additional content to make it look more neutral, but don't know what else to do. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, I am the author of the article in question, sorry for not having registered on wikipedia. Let me comment on a few key issues which were brought up in here: First, my initial complaint to Gwen Gale was indeed ill-tempered, and was rather rude. Please do understand that these words were written in the heat of the moment, the minute I saw that my work was deleted on grounds of what (in my opinion) are false accusations. Please accept my apology for this crudity, as there was no intention to hurt her feelings or discredit her.

Secondly, I see that some sections were removed under the claim of "advertisement" (edited by JasonHockeyGuy), let me stress this once more: I have nothing to do with the vendor of TAGES. Nothing. I merely wrote an article about their product. The removed sections contain material/quotes which is/are well-established (documented on CDFreaks.com). Additionally, would writing about a breach of a system amount to advertising? I fail to understand the logic behind this, *there was no advertising going on*.

Despite all this, wikipedia shows some of its two faced nature on other grounds, where there is mistreatment for other violations. Wikipedia forbids copyright infringement - we all know this. Now, check the SafeDisc article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safedisc): " UnSafeDisc circumvents and decrypts SafeDisc encrypted files by opening the ICD file format, decrypting it, and converting it to an EXE file. However each program requires a specific patch to enable full functionality.". Many articles on wikipedia link to tools or tutorials the main purpose of which is circumventing copy control measures (and thus, are illegal in various jurisdictions), yet no one erases them or modifies them - and I think we all know why. As I said, there seem to be an anti-DRM bias on this web site, judging by the vast majority of the DRM-related articles.

Respectfully yours.

  • Keep --SkyWalker (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XMPlay

This is another software product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE -- I am unable to locate any reliable and non-trivial third party publications about it. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StatPlus

StatPlus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be non-notable software. ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

some are, many arent; Z-StatPlus seems something else altogether, an anti-static product. DGG (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I see- some of those are off topic (and some are passing mentions). Some of those hits do refer to this piece of software; something to look at. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, a promotional article for non-consumer statistical software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Could you tell me in what sentence have you seen promotional words?P.S. I stop this discussion (for me). If wiki doesn't need new articles, it's better to publish them in magazines without any GPLs. I thought community needs more new referable information in comparison with articles without references. Alexeysim06 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - hits exist, but not sufficient about the software, establishing its notability.  Frank  |  talk  20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with {{refimprove}}—I had come here to close this as no-consensus; however, I found that the software notability guideline is now a dusty part of history and this is a borderline case. I would say that there are two reliable sources that address the software as the main topic ... but they are borderline reliable sources. I have converted these from external links to in-line references. The first is a newsletter produced by a Mac users organization in Canada; the reason why I say this is a potential reliable source is that there is a newsletter content editor and there are organization posts filled with named individuals. I have classed this as a news citation. The second is a blog entry at MacResearch.org; normally, I agree that blogs should not be taken as reliable sources. However, this blog both has a set of named staff and specifically has scientists who are using Macs in their research as contributors. I have classed this as a web citation. These two, in addition to verifiability lent by the company linkages, are sufficient to keep the article as a stand-alone for now. I do not believe that the citations in the article sufficiently support notability of the software at present ... but notability is a guideline and I ask that this article be given the benefit of the doubt for now. If no indisputably reliable sources become available in six months - it should be re-nominated for deletion, in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software Proposed deletion

for occasional archiving

[edit] Developers

[edit] Categories

Three categories using the acronym EDA are nominated for renaming: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 19#EDA.