Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula Builder for Microsoft Word

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. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Builder for Microsoft Word

Non-notable software product. Also WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:COI since the article was created by software author. {{Prod}} removed by article author with no explanation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional. Self-published sources including a press release. Non-notable. Wperdue (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I am the author. I made changes to address the concerns noted. I removed the Self-published sources including the press release. I added a reference to a reliable third party source (WebCPA, an independent source of information for CPAs). I removed references to Brad Smith, CPA, LLC in the aticle. I took care to write the article sticking to the facts. The product is known primarily in the CPA community. There are users of the product all over the world. I wrote the article because I know the product the best. My primary aim is not self-promotion but to extend the discussion of Microsoft Word citing an add-in that extends the capabilities of the Microsoft Word program. There are a lot of people who are interested in the formula-writing aspect of Microsoft Word. My contribution is just as much about informing people that want to know more about Microsoft Word's formula functions and appreciate Wikipedia as a source of information. Because it is not a Microsoft product it should have its own wiki page. --Bradsmithcpa (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete into either Microsoft Word or Microsoft Word 2007. MacMed^talk _stalk 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the added references are reliable and independent Rirunmot (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references relate to features of Microsoft Word, and do not bolster the notability of this product at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article without references available to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Author I added another reference to a reliable third party source - SmartPros (smartpros.com) , a well known and respected source of training and information for professionals in accounting and financial management. I think Formula Builder for MS Word passes the Google test for notability. I got 220,000 hits googling the product name and 18,900 hits if the product name is placed in quotation marks (searched as exact phrase). I think the added reference and the google information gives it notability--Bradsmithcpa (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two relevant source cited in the article ([1] and [2]) amount to little more than product announcements. They do not constitute substantial, independent reviews of the product. The rest of the references in the article are pages from the Microsoft online help pages documenting shortcomings in the existing Word features, with no reference to this product at all. The gHits that the author mentions result from the fact that the software is heavily advertised and available for download at MANY sites. This does not make the product notable, only easily accessible. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update from the Author I added an independent review of the product [3]. The other independent references for Microsoft Word are to support the comments in the article which is a wiki best practice. They are not included to decieve others into thinking the product has notability - just provide support for the article. --Bradsmithcpa (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this meets WP:N at all. The reviews aren't from reliable sources. And frankly, Brad Smith, since you clearly have a conflict of interest you really shouldn't be directly working on this article at all. That's considered very inappropriate on Wikipedia, regardless of any conscious intentions to avoid bias. This article's existence is essentially a promotion of your product. I do commend you for disclosing your relationship to the article subject, however. -- Atama ^chat 16:58, 26 June 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.