Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad

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 Keep --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EditPad

Blatant advertising article of a software product. Does not try to establish notability, does not contain any references, or reliable sources. Vacuum Cleaner 01 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 (blatant advertising) and A7 (no assertion, no reliable sources). Let the others vote. Though I still think there is lack of notability and reliable sources. Vacuum Cleaner 01 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you start an AfD and then promptly recommend a speedy delete? I don't think you understand how speedy deletion is supposed to work. You should have put a speedy deletion template on the article and then waited for it to either be deleted or disputed. Bryan Derksen 05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:195.113.33.33 did and it was removed very shortly after. I doubt it would last for an administrator to seize. Vacuum Cleaner 01 07:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not blatant advertising. The things stated in the article are true and not worded incorrectly or inappropriately. G11 does not apply. Also, this is about a software product, and not any of the mentioned entities of A7. Therefore, A7 does not apply. —msikma (user, talk) 08:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless can provide independent sources suggesting notability. Someguy1221 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G11 requires inapproptiate content, not just have a product as its subject. A7 is for articles about people, groups, companies and websites, not software products. --Urod 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) (link fixed Urod 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. An article about a product is not necessarily an advertisement for a product. What advertisement would have a "criticism" section? Not to mention that this use of a sock puppet account strikes me as very dubious - who is this a sock puppet of, and why can't he nominate stuff for deletion with his main account? Bryan Derksen 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry about the sock. I considered my reasons well enough from previous troubles in AfD. I do not wish to fight with my own account when this is done. And I do not need my vote to count, consensus can be reached without me. Anyway, where is a notability established? And was the criticism section added by those, who seek to improve the rest of the article? Vacuum Cleaner 01 07:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I noticed you two voted for keep, does this mean you think the subject of the article is actually notable? Someguy1221 07:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. If you want, I can explain why. --Urod 13:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on notability. According to Wikipedia:Notability#The general presumption of notability, notability is defined as being significant coveraged in (preferably more than one) secondary sources. For this product, there are at least ~~four~~three different secondary sources: ~~[1]~~, [2], [3], and [4]. The sites ~~codeguru.com~~, pcmech.com, softpedia.com, softkey.info are independent on the JG Software and on each other. --Urod 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC), fixed Urod 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please note that the codeguru review is about different EditPad. First, you can compare the screen shots. Second, the codeguru EditPad gives a source, our EditPad comes without source. Third, the authors of each EditPad are completely different. Vacuum Cleaner 01 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment That's right, removed codeguru. --Urod 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Also note, that CodeGuru, PC Mechanic and Softkey.info are probably not considered as reliable source. They are not even covered by Wikipedia themselves in any way. ~~Softpedia provides 100% clean certificates only, they do not review the software. Anyone can submit any software on Softpedia.~~ Vacuum Cleaner 01 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I read WP:RS carefully and didn't find any notice that a reliable source must be covered by Wikipedia. If it is written somewhere in WP:RS, please tell where. The three sources do not contradict each other, contain no exagerrated statements, and two of them contain also negative information about EditPad. I don't see any reason to consider them unreliable. --Urod 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC), reworded Urod 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Reliable source does not need to be covered by wikipedia. However, the WP:RS reads, that a reliable source is for example a peer-reviewed journal. In particullar, you might find a good-bad review of every text editor somewhere, but only some text editors are covered by well established peer-reviewed magazines. Are PC Mechanic and Softkey.info established peer-reviewed magazines (or other things named in WP:RS)? Do they suggest notability? I do not need an answer. My comment should only pointed to the fact, that they might not be enough. Vacuum Cleaner 01 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: and another link, which is as good as the others: [5]. --Urod 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment One thing I have noticed: Your sources gives the EditPad not-so-good overall scores. It is 2/5[6], or 3/10[7]. But this does not count in notability. Vacuum Cleaner 01 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment 2/5 is indeed a grade given to EditPad, while 3/10 is a grade given by users to the article (see the "rate this article" box below). I think that a source which is not afraid to publish poor grades about itself or the product is more reliable. Unreliable sources would use words like "magnificient" and "incredible", and a lot of 10/10 grades. --Urod 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first tertiary search result for EditPad seems to be an article about an EditPad at CodeGuru. However, this is about a different EditPad. There is also a result for online Edit Pad, an online text editor. All other results (including the top five, in my case) are product information page about this editor that we're discussing, by the makers of the software itself. Despite having a non-unique name, it comes out at the top of the Google search, although the first non-endorsed page is about a different product. (This is not a full-fledged notability report.) —msikma (user, talk) 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (another): Why is this being nominated by a self-admitted sock puppet, and who does Vacuum Cleaner 01 belong to? —msikma (user, talk) 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (on my sock puppetry) I hope I am not going to be lynched as far as I do not violate any WP:SOCK. Is it not allowed to do so when you have a real reason to believe that you will be hated by some and pursused thereafter for what you are trying to do? And again, I fail to recognize what good would it bring to my own account. Vacuum Cleaner 01 08:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright. I was curious for the reason, although I'd rather see one's main account be involved in this. Not that it makes any difference for this AfD. (Maybe this comment thread should be ignored entirely, it's useless.) —msikma (user, talk) 09:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have made that mistake elsewhere already. It is the Editor war that comes as a reason. Vacuum Cleaner 01 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Vacuum Cleaner's existence as a sock puppet has no bearing on anything. Sockpuppetry is permitted to seperate one's activities. So long as sockpuppets are not used to create artificial consensus, or wiggle around 3RR or blocks, there is nothing wrong with them. And so, Vacuum Cleaner has every right to have a sock just for starting and arguing AFDs, so long as his other accounts steer clear of them. Discussion on this page should be confined to the merits of the article, and what should become of it. Someguy1221 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What exactly is the problem here? This a pretty well known product. I'm not sure how exactly we can establish the notability of a piece of software to everyone's satisfaction (is Notepad sufficiently notable? or Word? and if so why? I can't see any WP guidelines for software, are there any?) but Google gives 372,000 hits for "editpad" which must surely count for something. Flapdragon 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above discussion, nominator should re-read WP:POINT. --Steven Fisher 02:31, 18 May 2007 (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.