Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Computer Sync

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Computer Sync

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

As User:GregJackP wrote: "The article is promotional, likely fails WP:GNG, and not written as an encyclopedia article". See also Wikipedia's notability guideline for products and services.

I have more than once tried to clean the article up. But single-purpose account User:Omnipedia09 (contribs) and the page creator — single-purpose account User:Mfcmaster (contribs) — have reverted some of my work and/or deleted article maintenance templates.

It's not worth keeping such pages around. Doing so rewards the page creators, encourages them to start new low-quality articles about their products and services in the future, and encourages them to continue repeatedly violating Wikipedia policy. Unforgettableid (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am sorry Unforgettableid if you find this software to be "boring niche software", as you indicated in the comments, but there are others who find it useful and relevant. It has received 9,000 downloads on CNet's download.com.[1] There are many easy transfer cables (which cost $30-$40 each), and normally they can only be used once, to transfer one time to a new windows computer, with Windows Easy Transfer. If you use Easy Computer Sync, you can drag and drop files between the computers with the easy transfer cable, thereby not rendering the cable useless. As to the notability, both Slashgear.com[2] and GizMag.com[3] has discussed this software, and Gizmag.com brought up the point that Easy Computer Sync provides another way to use the cable. Also, Unforgettableid, you keep commenting on me personally, not on the content of the article. This could be considered an ad hominem argument. I have repeatedly asked you to discuss the merits of the article in the talk page, but you have ignored these requests. Omnipedia09 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)— Omnipedia09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note. The above commenter has only ever edited one article: the Easy Computer Sync article. Unforgettableid (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unforgettableid, that is precisely an ad hominem argument. Please talk about the content of the article. Omnipedia09 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, it is a legitimate comment under the deletion policy, and admin guidance for AfDs. It is not an ad hominem attack, as it goes to the weight of the policy arguments that are made. GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute says: "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI." As for your request to discuss the article's notability: It might be mildly interesting for me to debate with you about whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. But you have already taken up too much of my time by removing maintenance templates and such, and I have too many other things to do in real life. And so I respectfully decline to debate notability with you on the article's talk page. With kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not have a conflict of interest with regards to the product or article. I found the product through Wikipedia, and find the article useful and worthwhile. Unforgettableid, if you don't want to provide any reasonable arguments for why the article should be deleted, then I suggest you remove your request to delete the article. Omnipedia09 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are a contributor to the article; that is why I wrote the above conflict-of-interest note. My arguments are at the top of this page. Now all there is to do is wait a week and see what will happen with this deletion request. There is no need for either of us to spend more time on unnecessary further discussion. Kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a mere contributor or editor of an article does not have a conflict of interest based merely on his or her editing of the article. It takes an external connection with the subject of the article, such as an employee of a company, a familial relationship, etc. A creator or major contributor should declare in an AfD, but it is not COI. GregJackP Boomer! 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A checkuser says that Omnipedia09, who claims to have "found the product through Wikipedia", is a sockpuppet of the person who created the article. Also, both the accounts edited pretty well exclusively about the products of one company, and much of the editing appears promotional in character. Conflict of interest is pretty clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, per nom's quote of my earlier prod. I have no problem with a COI per JBW's comment above, however the reason initially stated did not meet policy for COI. Merely editing or contributing to an article is specifically listed as not being COI. Has an SPI been done? I'm assuming there has been, since a checkuser's involved. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. As for User Omnipedia09 i see an a WP:COI due to the fact that it the only article he edited. TheMesquito (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also user Omnipedia09 has been blocked due to being a sock-puppet of User:Mfcmaster. Not only a COI but just a page creator trying to use alts to prevent page deletion. TheMesquito (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While socking and a COI are not reasons to delete an article (unless they are paired with a G11 qualification), failing WP:GNG is. The references in the article are either not independent or not significant coverage of the subject (or both). A Google News search provides no independent and significant coverage from reliable sources that can be used to establish notability and either does a Google Nws Archive search. I should not though, that the archive search does produce one press release (not independent) and one article from a tech blog that I wouldn't necessarily consider significant coverage. Even if it did, one article will not satisfy WP:GNG especially since it's about three and a half years old and apparently the only time the product was ever written about. If the subject were notable, you would think it would have gained more than one small piece of coverage over that period of time. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be no evidence anywhere of notability. Certainly, the article itself provides no independent sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2013 (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.