Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACDSee (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. It's snowing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACDSee

edit
AfDs for this article:
ACDSee (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)

This article fails to establish its notability as required by Wikipedia Notability Guideline as this entire article does not cite a single reliable source, let alone citing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fleet Command (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its poor form to renominate without explaining what has changed or why prior close was incorrect. "Time" has proved no such thing, and people have linked to sources to support their view even when not improving the article. I am no techie, and only commented this time and last time because even I knew this was notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A very well-known and popular utility; lots of reviews and references can easily be found. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely keep. All this article needs is tags that refs are missing. Topic is completely notable. - xpclient Talk 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was surprised to see the name on the list. (It doesn't excuse it from needing references, though!) --Pnm (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me surprise you more: An administrator has been exercising his privileges to blank and redirect the article without a discussion. By bringing this article to AFD, I gave this article another chance of survival. But next year I won't do that. I'll let the article go. (I don't mean to be bludgeoning by repeating what I already said twice above.) Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, redirection is something anyone can do, and nothing to do with administration privileges. I was being bold with the notability guidelines for products - to contest it, one merely has to revert and add the assertion of notability. I'm not sure why deletion is on the table: this could've been discussed on the talk page. The Maximum PC review above is satisfactory. Marasmusine (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's right. Actually, I did not intend to connect "administrator" and "privileges" in a manner that means "administrative privileges" (and I don't feel that I actually did so.) As for deletion being on the table, AFD attracts more visitors. I have realized that under certain circumstances, it is much more fruitful to bring a problematic article to AFD instead of just crying in the talk page one more time along with other criers; after all, obscure articles have obscure talk pages. Fleet Command (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jump on in Wolfstorm000, its waiting for you!--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guy, I'm looking at multiple people who obviously want to keep this article and are bringing sources to an AfD without adding them to the article first, and then posting here. If you want the article kept, then the relevant questions need to be answered and the relevant objections need to be satisfied. If you Milowent are one of the ones who want the article kept, take your own advice. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that again. Fleet Command (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spend a great deal of time improving articles. "fix or delete" is a lazy comment that is never acceptable in my opinion. That's what WP:SOFIXIT, a Wikipedia guideline, is all about. This is going to be kept, so stop whining about it and use your obvious smarts and expertise to rectify it!--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes, I agree. But for an article that people assert to be notable but does not prove its notability per WP:NRVE, I don't think so.

Besides, a very small amount of forceful action is always required to make people comply. Otherwise, people who want to improve things will end up where I did: Once, I proposed a merger of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Player 11. People participated and put a lot of difficult conditions for merger. (You can still see the discussion in the talk page.) But when it came to actual action, I was out there for three months trying to find sources and couldn't. I pleaded for help in finding sources that all of us had took it for granted to exist, but none of those "voters" helped me. They just hanged me to dry. And I couldn't do anything because there was no motivation for them to help.

So, you see, being so civil and assuming good faith does not always work: You need source and people say there is source, but when it comes to action, you'll be surprised how useless those sources were. That's how it is right now: People say Snowball keep; there are a lot of sources. But none of those voters add them to the article because these sources are useless. Only its a case of I Like It and they never admit that these sources are useless. The motivating force of deletion is required: Add good sources (which I don't believe to be in existence) to the article, or we do it by the book; no proof of notability = deletion.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear your opinion. You were the first one to say "lets fix it" so fix it. Also keep in mind that alluding other editors are lazy and whining would be dangerously close to violating WP:CIVIL. Like I said, If you like the article and think its worthy, fix it. Since this was posted I see I believe 10 votes for keep and the only editing that was done was by the nominator, the same one everyones complaining about, and another editor who put in the rescue tag. Milowent, you have spent a considerable amount of time talking in this AfD to keep the article yet have done nothing to actually address this issue, besides being coming close to being uncivil to another editor, myself. The article was nominated for non- referenced and advert. violations, if anyone wants the article kept, those must be addressed. They have not so at this point in time another admin could technically come around and delete and be within policy. If there are no references included and the advert. issue isnt changed it is deletable. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I on candid camera now? As I said the article will be kept, so you can choose to help fix it or not. Now I go beyond lazy and choose to call you a poopyhead for being silly like this.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I did add one ref to the article earlier, though much more work is needed.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD! [1] Major news organizations write articles reviewing it. Dream Focus 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable software. How many image organizers get reviews in the Washington Post and Reuters? The GNG requires the existence of RS, not necessarily their immediate inclusion in the article, and AFD is not for cleanup. ----Divebomb is not British 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Milowent (you bootybutt!) and the link kindly provided by DreamFocus. Sure, snow would be fine. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject clearly meets the inclusion guidelines based on significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The sole delete voter demonstrates a lack of familiarity with deletion policy, which states "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Bongomatic 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ACDSee_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137528841"