Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireCMD

FireCMD

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources cited are all WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. As this is a new product apparently released just 2 weeks ago, the lack of sources is unsurprising. This product may become notable in the future but it isn't yet and Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjurers Encrypter. Msnicki (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. An interesting product, and some day it may meet notability standards, but right now it does not. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (only "reviews" found were written by the developer) TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notability not enough though a review http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/FireCMD.shtml is written by third party. This link supports it: http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/ . This link http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/FireCMD-Screenshot-234232.html shows screenshots taken by third party (with their copyright notice) with captions. Moreover the software is being discussed at various programming forums and answer sites (though not a reliable source) like this link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16352779/how-to-run-powershell-in-firecmd. Software is available for download from multiple download directory sites. No point in deleting it when it seems like it may meet notability standard very soon. Also the software is being displayed on the home page of this reputed site, tagged as a new & popular software (not an advertisement) - http://alternativeto.net/ Nickjames90 (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia may call that a review, but I don't. All they've done is assign 1 to 5 stars without explaining how or why and without even signing the review with a byline. That's not serious review at all. Alternativeto is even less useful: The "like" votes may well be from the developers friends; there's no way to tell. It's certainly not reliable. And, yes, there is point in deleting an article that does not meet the notability standard, even if we think it might meet it soon: The point is that we have guidelines and we agree to cooperate and follow them. The guidelines ask that we ascertain there are sources now. We do not guess about the future. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. If additional sources appear a month from now, the article can easily be reinstated without prejudice. It can also be WP:USERFIED so you can work on it while searching for sources. Msnicki (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the website http://alternativeto.net/software/firecmd/about/ says the entry was added by "Brainasoft" (the company name). The above discussion doesn't present any new information addressing notability. TEDickey (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. Softpedia is just a directory of software, and the entry is categorically not a review. Stackoverflow is not a reliable source, nor is Alternativeto. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that this http://superdownloads.com.br/download/169/firecmd/ can be considered as a serious review. Nickjames90 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superdownloads is not a reliable source. Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Which kind of sources can be considered as reliable sources? The site has got Google PR 6. Nickjames90 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superdownloads doesn't have any meaningful reputation for accuracy or editorial oversight. They're basically a catalog site and vendor of free downloads. This has nothing to do with popularity or PageRank. For more, please see WP:RS. Msnicki (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you determine this measure of "meaningful reputation" exactly? It looks like a "real" review site to me, complete with local content. This is not Softpedia. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're a catalog site and vendor of free downloads because (in case you couldn't tell by looking) that's what they say they are. From their about page, "Operates in Brazil since 1998, as a large catalog of software with more than 30,000 available for download from games, demos, shareware and freeware." They're no more reliable than a product description on Amazon, which we also do not accept as a suitable to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you what they were, so I'm not sure why you're answering some other question. But to that topic, download.com is also a "catalog site and vendor of free downloads", yet their reviews are CITEd all over the place. So back to my actual question: by what measure is a download.com review "good" and Superdownloads one "bad"? Can you offer any cogent metric? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The metric (at least, for me) is that they shouldn't be in the business of vending (even for free) the stuff they're reviewing. But also, I would point to the guidelines. To me, Superdownloads appears to be an WP:SPS: "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." I certainly understand that some editors might interpret the guidelines differently, but this is how I would call it. Msnicki (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me the reliablility of the superdownloads.com site is undetermined. We don't know if it provides editorial oversight into the selection of software for review. It might or might not be. If there were other somewhat decent sources and this might tip the balance, then it might be worthwhile to post at the RS/N for an evaluation. But given that this is the only potential reliable source scraped up so far, even if it were to be deemed reliable, there's no other source to go with it. -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superdownloads does not appears to be a WP:SPS to me. I read some reviews and it appears that reviews are written by editorial staff, rather than users. Nickjames90 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate reviews aren't 100% positive. Find a review anywhere on that site where they identify flaws in anything. This is a catalog site in the business of offering downloads so of course everything is wonderful. I'll say again: These are no more reliable than the product descriptions on Amazon. Like Whpq, I don't exactly know how their reviews are generated but no way is this a publication with clear editorial oversight. Msnicki (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, they write positive reviews. But that does not mean that Superdownloads is not reliable. They do comparisons with other products. It can be only said not reliable in the case if their positive reviews are misleading and they write points about the product that are not true. Nickjames90 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]