- 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious advert for non-notable software. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Gets four (4) Google hits, total, with not the slightest sign that world at large has taken notice of this product. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. The Nabokov fan should make their judgments in these situations on a case by case basis and not be so personal with Calton in the prof/afd process. Bwithh 01:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MER-C 08:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 4 Google hits. Prolog 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to comment as the author of this article. Having studied the rules on Wikipedia:Notability (software), I cannot claim that the article meets the requirements. I had not realised this when I wrote it and apologise for that. There may have been magazine reviews of this product, but as I am not aware of them at this time, I cannot make a case. What I do strongly object to is the claim that the article is an "obvious advert". The article makes no recommendations and does not make statements about how this product is better than any other product. It objectively describes what the product does, no more. It is not an advert and I am a technologist, not an advertiser (this product is free by the way). What I want to get across is that merely bringing to the attention the Wikipedia:Notability (software) rules and mentioning that the person nominating the article for deletion is not aware of any published reviews would have been sufficient and appropriate. I would have studied the rules closer and realised that there was a point - end of story. Accusing me of writing an "obvious advert" is completely unnecessary. Similarly, the comments about Google hits: where exactly is number of Google hits mentioned as a Wikipedia metric for notability? I suppose I could now accuse you of writing an obvious advert for Google. By the way, whenever the likes of Google or Yahoo launch a new product, there will for sure be a large number of hits for this product on Google in no time. Does this mean that the "world at large" has recognised the product as being significant? I think not. This is why the Wikipedia rules for notability use metrics such as independent magazine reviews, not Google hits. In conclusion: I accept that the article does not meet the requirements for notability. I do not accept that I wrote an advert and I do not understand the need for making such an accusation against me. CoffeeBreak 08:18, 2 October 2006 (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.