Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantis Word Processor

< 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. The reviews seem to be enough to show notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Word Processor

edit
Atlantis Word Processor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citation of independent reliable sources, no assertion of notability. Cynical (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice looking article, transwiki to at least somewhere. Dr. Eme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I do not understand what "reliable sources" you expect in case with article on a word processor. Is not its home site a reliable source? Are not sites like techpin.com or teleread.org reliable sources with reviews on this word processor? By the way, I have just added a link to the review by the CNet editor. gillian2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
No, for the purposes of verifiability, only sources independent of the subject are considered. Sources which have an association with the subject (such as the official product website) are only sufficient for uncontroversial details such as the name of the product, its release date and so on. Cynical (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article does contain sources independent of the subject. I mean at least 3 links from the "External links" section. There are plenty of other reliable sources on the Web that can be included in this article. If this product was not notable, googling for "Atlantis Word Processor" (phrase search) would not give about 190,000 results. OK, this article can be improved. The same applies to many other articles. But why delete it? Instead of deleting it, would not it be more constructive to improve it? gillian2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't found significant discussion of this product in reliable, third-party sources; nor can I see what makes it stand out from competitors. The article also appears to be very spammy. ThemFromSpace 01:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reworked version. I have reworked this article. I have removed references to the product's own homepage (the "References" section), and removed what can be called "advertising spiel", as suggested by Little Professor. I have added more critical notes and more links to reviews. The article does include information about features unavailable in other word processors ("features for writers" - "what makes it stand out from competitors"). Let's be consistent. If you think that this article should be removed, please check the List of word processors. There you will find MANY articles on marginal, abandoned, or exotic programs that are not referred by any reliable sources, and with advertising spiel. Nearly any article (including articles on freeware programs) includes statements that can be considered advertisement. Why not then remove all the articles, and leave the Wikipedia readers with a simple choice: MS Word and OpenOffice? Would anyone benefit from this? Tell me please, why the present article on Atlantis Word Processor is not OK and the articles on Jarte, Qjot, PolyEdit, etc. are OK? Why mentioning any feature of a program is considered advertisement by someone? There is no point in creating articles on a software when you are not allowed to mention its features. To those who still do not believe that this word processor deserves a Wikipedia article, please just google for "Atlantis Word Processor". gillian2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC). — Duplicate !vote: gillian2008 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
The article still doesn't assert any notability, which is done through mentions in reliable, third-party sources. The argument that other stuff exists isn't valid because there is a lot on here that shouldn't be. ThemFromSpace 02:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you examined the "Reviews" section of the article? Sorry, but you could not find more reliable sources for information on a word processor than PC World or CNet or other software portals. Where it should be mentioned to become "notable"? In the Bible? :) gillian2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 21 August 2009 (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/Atlantis_Word_Processor&oldid=1086056990"