Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything (software)

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. More recent and updated posts seem to sway consensus towards the "keep" side. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything (software)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No credible assertion of notability nor non-trivial significant coverage found. The only references listed are forum posts. (Also written by COI author) Triplestop x3 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 04:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find reliable sources for this. Crafty (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crafty. -- ISLANDERS27 09:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author of the article, Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs) has stated here that he has no connection with the author of the software, David Carpenter. I'd recommend striking the COI comment. The sole issue here should be notability. Since the article author has only been editing here for a couple of weeks, perhaps it would be prudent to give him time to assemble sources addressing that issue, as he is seemingly only just coming to terms with how Wikipedia denotes notability. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no showing of minimal technical or historical importance. Referenced only to forums. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep: Per Lifehacker, PCWorld, and Refolder. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find sources either. RexxS, assuming this AfD doesn't get closed per WP:SNOW or any other early closure there is a full week to find sources. Even if the article is deleted, Yappy2bhere can request that the article be copied to a subpage of their user space to work on it. If sources can be found then the article should be recreated, as an AfD doesn't normally prevent recreation if the recreated article is substantially different and satisfies the concerns raised in the discussion that led to its deletion. (Finding sources showing notability would certainly qualify.) -- Atama頭 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me then how the articles on 7-Zip, sed, XYplorer, FreeOTFE, and Mp3tag, to name a few, are notable. They all appear to fail by the standards you invoke. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented on the above at Yappy2bhere's talk page. I trust nobody will WP:BITE him here. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using Joe Chill's edit of Mp3tag as a model, I've added a "Reviews" section with five glowing name-brand reviews, including a "top 10" and "top 25" pick in minor but relevant categories, and cited Wakoopa's ranking placing Everything above WinZip in usage. I've emended the hated forum citations to name the application developer, as appropriate, and link directly to the intended post instead of to the page containing it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd urge the early voters to see the progress made in demonstrating notability over the last 24 hours. The references have been broadened as well. At present, I think that notability has just about been shown, and given that Yappy2bhere is learning quickly what is required, I'd give the article the benefit of the doubt. Just as a "delete" does not preclude recreation, a "keep" for the moment does not preclude a further review in the future. The following may not be a consideration for the closer, but I'd add that the encyclopedia benefits most from encouraging new contributors and guiding them in how to write good articles; deleting a new editor's first efforts in a borderline case does much to set that back. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all still sources that don't demonstrate notability through significant coverage or are unreliable blog/ forum posts. Triplestop x3 22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking principally of the "Review" section links to (1) a review by an associate editor of ZDNet and (2) a review by a staff writer at PCWorld - both are respectable consumer IT magazines (although they are using a blog format, those are editorial pieces). These are a cut above unmoderated blogs by anons and self-published info. Maybe it's not enough, but I don't think those two, in particular, can be dismissed as insignificant or unreliable blog posts. YMMV --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the third-party sources aren't exactly in-depth, but I think they are reasonably reliable and there are enough of them to (just about) demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominators assertion that 'written by COI author' is false. The whole nomination seems to have stemed from that mistake. I request the nominator amend the nomination accordingly. On the subject of notability the PC World review and the Lifehacker review is enough. SunCreator (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established for this software.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GB fan (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 November 2009
Keep The notability of the topic is well established by the numerous reviews. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Joe Chill. (Joe, it is good to be on your side for once) - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:37, 2 November 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.