Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software

Add links
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. Tone 16:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BeLight Software

[edit]
BeLight Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Multiple articles created by an WP:SPA account(User:RayJazz21) with no other edits other than related to BeLight Software.

Clear Use of wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "BeLight Software" and related Products. References given appear to be paid reviews that do not confer notability; and various press releases that do not count as reliable sources.
I am also nominating the following Advertisements masquerading as articles:

Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is notability not inherited, to the other spam articles, but Paying $3000-$6000 (and up) (costs of exhibiting at Macworld) for a booth at Macworld Expos;
May be good Marketing, but paying for reviews, does not make for notability[1][2].--Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources are also reliable and independent. Yes, many link to BeLight's site, but do you think that MacWorld or others would allow BeLight to keep false reviews up? That would pose a problem for them and they would surely ask BeLight to remove them. BeLight does not pay for reviews, and actually, BeLight is not paying for a booth at MacWorld this year. And even if it were, what does participation in this huge event have anything to do with "buying" reviews? Apple itself takes part in this event. Perhaps you should show some sort of evidence that BeLight paid for reviews before you slander two companies that are well-known in the Mac world. If you have a problem with the reviews, then delete them, but don't start a firefight to delete the entire pages. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still waiting for support of slanderous claims that BeLight Software pays for its reviews and that participation at the MacWorld expo (biggest Mac conference) is in some way "paying" for reviews. Thanks. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the documents linked? As I see it, you have to pay for participation there. So there is a difference between a journal writing a review just because they want to review, or being on such a conference and being reviewed there. And yes, Apple has a booth there as well, but the article about Apple software is not solely based on Macworld reviews, is it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, since when does taking part and paying for a booth at the most popular Mac expo where journalists are abundant qualify as paying for reviews? You pay to participate in the expo, and, if journalists find your product interesting and worth reviewing, they may write about you. Yes, I did read the article and found the following quote very interesting: "The floor of Macworld isn’t only teeming with attendees – it’s also infested by that lovable creature known as the “Mac journalist”. Just like attendees, journalists are scanning the floor to find new and newsworthy items. Mac journalists like David Pogue (seen at right) are great, but even they can’t cover products of which they’re not aware." Of course you pay for exposure, but you do not in any way pay for these people to write about you. That is a ridiculous and false claim that you cannot support. And BeLight Software articles also are not based solely on MacWorld articles. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do take a look for yourself at www.belightsoft.com at the review pages of each product. Business Card Composer, for example, has over 40 independent reviews and awards from reliable sources. Swift Publisher has over 20. They contain links to the original reviews on the site of the original source, where still available. Don't forget, the company has been around since 2003. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may seem like an advertisement :) Reviews are full of language that, if by the developer, could sound like marketing language. Now we are getting somewhere: how to make the articles better. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually not. The only way to make them better is to have more references, and you say they are not suitable. If that is the case, then the articles don't assert notability enough, and should be deleted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a large nomination with those subarticles and I give it large attention. I find that some of the software articles have a single sources showing notability, our requirements are for multiple sources of notability. A merge to one article might make sense, but that seems like a forced compromise in order to preserve content. The company has zero notability shown for itself. The obvious merge target for the company would be deleted. A merged products article might be ok but since this is a spam attempt I will favor towards deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of Get Backup and Printfolio, all articles have more than one reference. Instead of opting to delete everything, let's figure out what makes the articles "spam" or advertisements and work from there. Seems a bit more rational. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And do you decide what is considered good coverage? According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A software review is plenty more than a "trivial mention," and the sources (MacWorld, MacUser, TopTenReviews, and others) are independent and have "editorial integrity," which is covered in point two of the notability guidelines. Don't assume that a source isn't reliable just because you don't know them by name. Don't forget that Mac users make up roughly 10% of computer users, and if you don't use a Mac, of course you won't recognize names like MacWorld and MacUser. But that doesn't make them unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayJazz21 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are also examples of routine coverage that I am not impressed by. All consumer products get reviewed so I do not consider most reviews as evidence of notability. A feature length review has more to judge, and that is not something most of these have - and we would want multiples of them. Miami33139 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a very good point here. You do not feel that this is evidence of notability, but you are only one of many Wikipedia users. And the reviews that have been placed as resources are feature length reviews. RayJazz21 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that if we covered every product reviewed by MacWorld we would be inundated with worthless articles. There are more requirements than just being mentioned for a few paragraphs in a review. I do not think that these reviews were "bought" but nevertheless do not imply notability. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The articles in question do not contain marketing gimmicks. They include information about the version history and other aspects of the products. If there are any questions about the reviews in question, then why not just remove those portions, if they seem like advertisement? Naming the articles advertisements and deleting them entirely is going overboard. Point out what exactly makes them advertisements and let's discuss how we can make the articles better and more neutral. On the topic of adding external links, the links that were added to Wikipedia were plausible and written for BeLight users. The article about paper size does not directly correlate to any product that BeLight sells. The article was written for users to have a good reference when preparing their own documents in our programs. Having links on Wikipedia wouldn't do much for BeLight since the Macintosh community includes about 10% of computer users, Wikipedia doesn't allow links to assist in SEO, and because BeLight did not in any way promote any of its products. The LightScribe and Labelflash article was posted together by MacMan77 with a link to an earlier review from Tom's Hardware. Why should the type of website matter when it comes to giving information to people? Who else is going to write an in-depth article about paper size formats? Only those who have some need for this, like users who might find the information useful, and if the information can also add more to the world of Wikipedia, then let it be. RayJazz21 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)— RayJazz21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I've heard this already. That is why we are here to discuss it. The Wikipedia deletion policy states that "advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)" is game for deletion. There is relevant content. There are links to these pages all over Wikipedia. If you look at DiscT@2 or LightScribe, for example, you will find that Disc Cover was the first Mac OS X application to support these two technologies, etc. So according to the deletion policy, these articles should stay. However, the second point of the deletion policy encourages editors to find compromises, ways to make articles useful for WIkipedia users without resorting to deleting them. I suggest we find what needs to be changed to make the articles less like "advertisements masquerading as articles," though these articles are very neutral and are up only as a point of reference. Are we discussing this issue, or are we taking a side, making false claims (MacWorld participation "paying" for reviews), and refusing to listen to others and consider the options? RayJazz21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • The first sentence of the essay you cite is as follows: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The subject (BeLight Software) has been covered plenty of times in independent, secondary sources. Your lack of knowledge about MacWorld and others (more than likely a result of using a different platform) does not make sources less reliable. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MacWorld is the largest Mac magazine in circulation and is circulated in over seven languages. Apple has taken part in the MacWorld expo every year to this date. Until last year, the CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, announced many of its star products at the famous Apple MacWorld Keynote presentations. In-depth software reviews from reliable, independent sources qualifies as significant in-depth independent coverage. The fact that you don't know the sources means absolutely nothing besides the fact that you may not be an expert of the matter. RayJazz21 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Macworld Expo is nothing more than a venue generated press release, "In the BeLight Software booth at Macworld Expo, Irina Stepanovska, Vice President of Marketing, talks about their latest release, Labels and Addresses, the easy way to print all types of labels and envelopes...."--Hu12 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your point? MacWorld is still a credible source. If you don't know about it, perhaps you should consider reading a bit about it before making unwarranted conclusions. Too bad no other Mac users in this discussion, people who know which sources are credible in the Mac world. RayJazz21 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Lines like "products have been applauded in the Mac community...[citation needed]" confirm the comments above: the articles are part of a marketing campaign, and the only references are other targets of that marketing campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no problems with notability in June. The reviews are more than a quick mention and from notable independent sources. As Power.corrupts points out, you're asking the community to very, very strictly interpret the notability guidelines. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's seem more than reviews. Let's see critical commentary and analysis that shows us why this software and this company are more important than others in its class. If it is not more important than others in its class then it is just plain run-of-the-mill and ordinary. Miami33139 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BeLight Software, weak delete the rest. The company's article is an easy case: it's basically just a list of products, and that runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. The other articles, I'm torn on. Yes, there are reviews on MacUser, etc., but the reviews are not as glowing as the text makes them out to be. I think Miami's got a point right above me: more critical commentary and analysis would make it easier to see that the programs are notable and should be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Sources are not significant; this is an advertisement campaign. Haakon (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per most of the above. --Herby talk thyme 12:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all However liberally one chooses to interpret our notability and verifiability policies, it's impossible to ignore that in this case Wikipedia is being used for promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as SPAM. The main article is supposed to be an article about the company, not just a list of software they sell.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and renominate any without actual reviews in third party publication. 3rd party reviews in major trade publications have always been accepted as RSs for notability of any product. It's the most possible substantial and significant coverage. (I'm talking about reviews, not listings, and that has to be judged from the review. One sentence in a group review would not make for notability). It does not matter how glowing the reviews are -- products worth being actually covered and given a poor review are almost always particularly notable, or the magazines wouldn't bother. There has never been any indication that the magazines discussed above take pay for reviews-- they take pay for advertisements, and very few of the products advertised there ever get reviews, just as very few of the products on the floor of a trade exhibition do. All articles about products of any sort can serve to some degree a promotional purpose, and the same is true for all articles about authors and bands and sport teams. There are probably some in the list above which indeed are non-notable, but they need to be sorted out individually. The proper course for an article which is just a list of notable products with reviews as sources is to expand it from the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all per DGG and renominate individually as necessary. It's improper to list a large number of articles on different products like this, even when they are made by the same company, especially when some have sources. How do you expect the closing admin to make decision based on the above spaghetti? Each product article should be discussed on its own notability. Besides, merging the less notable ones, e.g Business Card Composer (which only have short mentions in some columns etc.) in a company page per WP:PRODUCT can be done without an AfD. Pcap ping 10:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (see below for !vote on each article).[reply]
The above keep comments would be more convincing if just one example showing notability of just one of the articles could be found (bearing in mind the earlier "Macworld Expo is nothing more than a venue generated press release"). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Macworld Expo != Macworld, the magazine or site. Please go add from some WP:RS to Macworld: "this is magazine publishes bogus reviews submitted/bought by the manufacturers". Trust me, I know something about disguised adds. In Romania companies buy news on TV, in which they get portrayed favorably. Politicians used to do that too, and from the state's budget--until joining the EU made it illegal. I have reliable sources to prove that (EU Commision reports). Do you have something like that to show that Macworld sell its reviews as disguised adds? Pcap ping 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So:
That should be all of the products. Delete the company BeLight Software: no in-depth sources about the company have surfaced; it's possible that some exist in Russian/Ukrainian, but I can't find them; the current company article says very little about the company anyway, so not much is lost. Over the years, it's products however have resulted in about 185 google news archive hits. Pcap ping 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MacUser has over 3,000 reviews. Is each reviewed product automatically notable and deserving of an article? The answer is no, although I believe there is no guidance other than WP:GNG for when software is considered notable. Most Mac publications will get around to reviewing just about anything related to a Mac, so I would want something more to satisfy WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes per WP:GNG and WP:NOTPAPER. Besides, that's an order of magnitude fewer articles than the communes of France (30K of them), most of which have far less informative articles here than any piece of hardware/software. (Here is a France commune at random). So, I suggest you start elsewhere with your efforts to "improve" this Encyclopedia by removing content covered in WP:SECONDARY sources. Pcap ping 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the spam issue concern you? Are there conflicting opinions on the right spam policy in principal, and if so, how does this example line up? --Colfer2 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not making any sense. Can you rephrase that? Pcap ping 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have two questions about your original post, now struck-through. 1. If there is spam campaign, should that affect the decision to delete a page, or should it be based solely on other criteria, such a Reliable Sources? 2. If there is spam campaign, should an AfD be posted for each article, or one AfD for the whole group, as was done here? --Colfer2 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re (1): I'm not really familiar with spam campaigns, but WP:NOTADVERTISING speaks of the nature of the articles (promotional or not), and WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Special_note: advertising and promotion suggests some steps to follow. WP:ARTSPAM, unfortunately, isn't really illuminating as to what constitutes "advertisement masquerading as an article". Of course, as HereToHelp pointed out below referring to dynamic tension, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are only paraconsistent, meaning there are contradictory statements in/between them, which need to be solved on a case by case basis, by WP:CONSENSUS. Which is what we're doing here. Hopefully, given the amount of discussion here, this AfD will set precedent for future articles of this kind. I'm am curious how it turns out. As for (2), if the articles are based on similar sources that apparently don't confer notability, as it was the case here, and there is good reason to believe the articles are created as part of a promotional, it seems okay to have a mass AfD. Pcap ping 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The spam campaign isn't totally clear in this case, because the article on the company was written over two years ago by a different and non-WP:SPA editor [3]. Pcap ping 11:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The time it takes to research, write, and maintain an acceptable article is a very scarce resource that could be redirected to more mainstream, visible, helpful articles - if it can be found at all. If these articles are going to languish as they currently are, they aren't worth keeping, even if they could theoretically be improved. I think users defending these articles should select one and focus on it, bringing it up to an acceptable quality standard, as a demonstration that such a standard can - and more importantly will - be achieved.HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:41, 23 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeLight_Software&oldid=1137602333"