Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDition

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eDition

A publishing platform which converts PDFs to a digital format! No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Question. Where is the diffrence in notability between this digital publishing platform entry and entries for ZMag, NXTBook Media, Zinio, Pressmart Media and Issuu. It is simply one of many platforms available for emerging digital publishing platforms market. --Goranmp (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. All this digital publishing platforms are presented together here www.fipp09london.comon PPA's website for FIPP congres exibition "list of exibitors". And this is the most credible source for digital edition publishing: http://magdesigner.co.uk. This should be in this article references... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the most credible source for digital publishing is really a wordpress blog, then I can't see how any reliable sources can be produced. Paulbrock (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should defintely stay... Google is full of their hits (search: project site:public.edition-on.net). ... or other digital platforms should be erased as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Levyrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goranmp (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Goranmp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note I have indented and struck out duplicate votes by the same person, see the sockpuppet investigation. Tim meh 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a multimedia magazine trendsetter. --Sbrain7 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Sbrain7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. We seem to have been swarmed by SPAs, even before anyone's weighed in their view. I'm fairly neutral, as I've had a fiddle with the article. But the !votes so far are pretty amusing. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:CORP. No independent sources. Reso lute 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent sources - the 'references' in the article are all examples on EDition's website of what the site/service offers. Admittedly not the easiest name in the world to google for, but I can't find anything approaching WP:N. Paulbrock (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independet resources greater than zero.--Goramp (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Double-!vote by an SPA striked through. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)~~ Sorry, not a duplicate !vote. Just a very similar name to above. However, still an SPA. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have indented and struck out duplicate votes by the same person, see the sockpuppet investigation. Tim meh 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Goramp and Goranmp? Really? I hear quacking... Livewireo (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Livewireo maybe if you stop quacking for a moment you will actualy see the difference --Goramp (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question what is that? looking for conspiracy? why would anybody lied about technology like that? isn't http://magdesigner.co.uk independent source? what about FIPP congres... a lie? comon guys - there are many other digitital publishing platforms on Wikipedia allready: NXTbook, Zinio, Pressmart, Isuu... do you need a stamp from authority? isn't it what's wikipedia is all about: to gather informations from various sources and present them to do public.
~~Keep~~ The references in the article are also references on eDition's site, for eDition ... I understand it like they published independent sources, Paulbrock! Rather check sources ... Try search for this on google: project site:public.edition-on.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking through duplicate !vote. This one I'm sure of! Though still horribly perturbed by. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Bravo!!! Why not be a judge & jury. Accuse me of conspiracy too. Where this is going to? On which ground is this accusation - similar thinking? You are really something ... What do you guys even know about digital publishing? Let's play birocracy! This is not a spirit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 June 2009
Reply to Levyrock - The issue is that Wikipedia has certain standards for determining notability. The basic one is that a subject should have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Searching on Edition's website will not provide sources independent of the subject. Blogs are not regarded as being reliable, as anyone can write one with any information (see WP:SPS). And the FIPP site, whilst confirming EDition does exist and exhibits at trade fairs, falls far short of offering significant coverage, and would not be considered independent as presumably EDition paid for a spot at the congress. The sort of things we are looking for is a newspaper or trade magazine articles. Something that says independent sources think that EDition is important enough to write about. Please also note that Wikipedia also has a policy that you should be WP:CIVIL to other editors, which I suggest you are in danger of breaching. Paulbrock (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. for other companies mentioned in this discussion, this CNet article on Issuu, or this article from EContent magazine on Pressmart. Paulbrock (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd reply to Levyrock. Apologies if you feel I'm playing judge and jury, I wasn't intending to. I haven't accused you of conspiracy, but have voiced my suspicion that your account may be related to those above as none of you have edited much, if at all, outside this article and its deletion discussion, which I see as being unusual activity. I may be wrong. Either way, it would be great if you made a statement explaining whether or not these accounts are linked. I'm not saying that you knowingly tried to undermine Wikipedia, and I totally understand if you aren't clear with our policies - there are lots of them! Anyhow which way, please assume good faith in my edits - I'm only trying to make sure Wikipedia runs smoothly. If you have any more queries about such matters outside of this deletion discussion, please feel free to talk to me. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. | No one is safe, or is it?! --Goramp (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, as I asked before, assume good faith. If there's nothing untoward happening and the community agrees with this then no action will be taken and you have nothing to worry about. Aggravating the situation isn't helping anybody. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but after finding myself under socketpuppet investigation, that comment of mine seemed appropriate to me. Nothing personal. As you already pointed out - assume good faith. --Goramp (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Goramp, Goranmp, Levyrock and Sbrain7 have all been blocked as sock puppets. You can see the investigation here. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guideline. There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to avoid any mistake - it is I: Levyrock! and this is my last note. What you just did is called censorship. You accused every different (stay!) opinion of conspiracy (at least!) and than block me from writing here (or anywhere in wikipedia). You denied my basic right to defend myself from those rediculous accusations. I would like to know one thing: was my writings so disturbing to you guys that you just had to eliminate me? Did I wrote malicius artiles around? No. Just wrote here, where disscusion is supose to be ... about some trivial article, for which btw. I found this: http://www.monitor.si/clanek/citadela-edition/ (Google it for translation). And also see bureaucracy - that's probably your excuse for your doings here. Inquisition is .. too sharp term. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosenseatall (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Unfortunately Google's translation of the page from the original Serbian isn't much more comprehensible; from what I can gather the Serbian magazine also publishes using EDition software, though they do seem to go into a lot of detail about the service. It might constitute significant coverage, but probably not independent coverage, as has been explained on here. Paulbrock (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) See below.[reply]

Comment We do not speak Serbian in Slovenia. Sorry to interupt such a interesting debate but article is in Slovenian language and it is clearly a test. Monitor magazine is the most prominent computer/software magazine in Slovenia and as far as I know they do not use edition software. It is very amuzing to read quesing statements from above without any background or checking. Greetings from Slovenia.--Dolenjska (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. How silly of me. Correct translation from original Slovenian can be seen here Paulbrock (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite some sources mentioning edition solution in Slovenia. For example magazine "Moj mikro", the oldest computer magazine in former Yugoslavia: here, article Monitor magazine from 2007 here and there is some short news, articles and interviews about the edition solution. I'm glad if it will help. --Dolenjska (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dolenjska's sourcing of articles in Slovenian. Fences&Windows 21:39, 20 June 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.