Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winiso

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winiso

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

Article about software which does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article passes WP:NSOFT. In particular, it fulfils "The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers," by appearing in a number of instruction books. The book search link at the top of this notice finds a number of books suggesting the use of WinISO in the context of system administration and troubleshooting. In addition, the article lists WinISO as "the first ISO editing software in the world," which would lend it historical significance if true, though the citation references the software's website and might not be reliable. 129.67.156.156 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user at IP address 129.67.156.156 makes a good point: That's a pretty significant, albeit unverified, claim. And it does get mention in various sources. I'm certainly no fan of spam Wikipedia articles that have no effort put in to them, but I'm also not a fan of deletion nominations that are WP:JUSTAPOLICY, either. If this article is demonstrably bunk, it deserves to be deleted, but that hasn't been demonstrated. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (which is an essay, not a guideline or policy). It does not fulfill the subject of multiple third party materials criteria as it is not the subject of those books. Brief mentions do not grant notability. The only source for "the first ISO editing software in the world" is the software's website, so doubtful, and likely does not grant it notability anyways. ― Padenton|✉ 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Configuring VMware ESX Server 2.5 (Syngress, 2005) devotes three pages to discussing how to use the software, which is more than "trivial mention". But the others Google finds do seem to just mention it in passing as a product that fits a need, so that's a valid point for them. I did find one worthwhile review at TechRepublic, but it doesn't assert notability. I disagree that "first in a field" would not grant notability. Being the first of something is almost always significant. However, the lack of reliable sources does make that claim suspect, and I haven't been able to find anything reliable to back it up, so it's highly dubious. On the third hand, WP:NSOFT does say that "Simply stating 'non notable' and 'unreferenced' is not a valid criteria for deletion.", so I'm still concerned that this is being nominated for deletion just because people are not looking. (If people are looking and just not finding, they should please say so.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:40, 12 May 2015 (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.