Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batch Image Processor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 03:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Batch Image Processor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Many download sites list the program along with the standard manufacturer product description, but the only possibly valid source so far provided is a less than objective rehash of the standard description from freedownloadscenter.com -- a site that will review anything for a fee. I have not been able to source any other independent mention of the program, as would be required by WP:GNG. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly non-notable and author seems to be a SPA. Haakon (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is listed on numerous download websites (which is an apparent criteria for inclusion of at least half of all software stubs at Wikipedia): [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.; received numerous awards and independent reviews: [5], [6]. If you do believe that I am spamming, please include specific examples as to how I am breaking Wikipedia's policy.--George (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — George585 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The sources you list are all examples of the kind of sites pointed out by User:Electrified Fooling Machine as not valid. Please see the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Haakon (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you should be aware of, from the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biorhythms Calculator, being "listed on numerous download websites" is in itself irrelevant. The first "review" you list is the one I commented on in my deletion rationale. The second one you provide is not a review at all: it's a blog post containing the description copied from the manufactures website. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all how do you know that the review from FreeDownloadsCenter is a paid and thus unacceptable review? Secondly, the additional review I provided is not from a blog post but from a photo news website. And how do you know whether that post is manufacturer's description or not? These are just your guesses, in my opinion, that have little to do with the facts and specific guidelines, to which you are referring. As far as I see, both of these sources match the guidelines.--George (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We know that FreeDownloadsCenter gives reviews for a fee, and while that may or may not have been done in this case, this makes them unreliable as a source. Secondly, asserting that [7] is a verbatim copy of [8] is not a guess; it's a repeatable observation that anyone can make. Haakon (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about #2 then - I should have checked the website first. --George (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We know that FreeDownloadsCenter gives reviews for a fee, and while that may or may not have been done in this case, this makes them unreliable as a source. Secondly, asserting that [7] is a verbatim copy of [8] is not a guess; it's a repeatable observation that anyone can make. Haakon (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all how do you know that the review from FreeDownloadsCenter is a paid and thus unacceptable review? Secondly, the additional review I provided is not from a blog post but from a photo news website. And how do you know whether that post is manufacturer's description or not? These are just your guesses, in my opinion, that have little to do with the facts and specific guidelines, to which you are referring. As far as I see, both of these sources match the guidelines.--George (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Observation confirmed Photo News Today is not a reliable source. They just take info from vendors and repeat them on the blog. Not independent by any means. DarkAudit (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really?!? An argument that freedownloadcenter.com is an acceptable source? Really. Miami33139 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 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.