Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BestAddress HTML Editor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 17 June 2011 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 18:16, 17 June 2011 by Cirt (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- 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) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BestAddress HTML Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This doesnt appear to be notable. I can only find one source that looks usable[1] and no book sources. There are a few product reviews online, but they are not in depth and don't have an author. It has been known by this name for over five years, according to the 2005 report by the creator, which is used as a reference on the article. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nominator. Searching for the product's name in Google Web only returns unique 937 results, most of which are shareware sites or are sites involved in software piracy. The remaining are blogs, forums, and sources that fail WP:RS. The article claims the product has to have won 40 awards, the lack of coverage is suspicious and suggests advertising intent. Searching for "BestAddress HTML Editor" AND award -"Creating websites has never been easier with this multi-award-winning HTML editor" (to filter out shareware sites with the standard product description), Google returns 426 results, none of which appear to be RS. Rilak (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. It's easy to win awards; some webs sites give them away like candy. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Awards are significant notice by third parties and should not be dismissed out-of-hand. This has been seriously reviewed and the review was favorable. I don't like the review criteria. I think it skews the results to those programs that are promoted to reviewers. I would much prefer a software criteria that goes by how big a user and/or developer community downloads and supports the software. Nevertheless, this software meets wikipedia's flawed criteria and should be kept. Dlw20070716 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which awards has it won? And how do we verify the size of the user/developer community? We need reliable & independent sources for those facts. If you know of any serious reviews, please indicate where we can locate it. The tucows.com review is not critical and the author is not selective. see http://www.drff.com/ John Vandenberg (chat) 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards are the usual hodgepodge of stuff from unreliable websites. See this. -- Whpq (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which awards has it won? And how do we verify the size of the user/developer community? We need reliable & independent sources for those facts. If you know of any serious reviews, please indicate where we can locate it. The tucows.com review is not critical and the author is not selective. see http://www.drff.com/ John Vandenberg (chat) 09:35, 14 June 2011 (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.