Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExamDiff Pro

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep by default. A merge with ExamDiff was supported by some voters and may be a good idea, but that doesn't require a VfD discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExamDiff Pro

Commercial advertisement. See also ExamDiff. Quuxplusone 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that this is not a commercial advertisement any more than half the pages in Category:Windows software are commercial advertisements. As the creator of this page, I'm not sure if I can vote, but if I can: Keep -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Quuxplusone. Commercial advert. -Soltak 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - but I would like to comment that I think the page was created in good faith, and it has a few elements of neutral commentary. Perhaps remove the download links and mentions of purchase, and add a bit more content about the product itself? Rob Church 19:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the download and purchase links. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better, but I do see the points of others; it does read like an ad. Can we cite it as being popular? If it's not notable enough, then it will have to go. For instance, not enough people have heard of Screen Capture (it exists) to make it worthy of the wikipedia. Nevertheless, I do see the potential for this to be a useful article, and refuse to vote. Rob Church 20:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with ExamDiff and rewrite to reduce commercial tone. - choster 21:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ExamDiff, then Delete ExamDiff (see above) — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You mean delete ExamDiff Pro? ... or am I missing something? feydey 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, when I wrote the ExamDiff and ExamDiff Pro articles I was new to Wikipedia, and I didn't know what a proper software-related article is supposed to look like. Can you guys give me a couple of days so that I can Rewrite these articles to look more like this? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got 'em Alex, but you'll have to draw people's attention to it once done so they vote keep. Rob Church 02:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before I fix up the ExamDiff Pro article, how do you guys like my ExamDiff article? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to be look very nice now, but I'm unsure of the advertising issue - we really ought to only have programs so well known that our contribution to their promotion is negligible, and I'm not convinced that's true here. If that criteria can be met, I'd change my vote to keep, but until, then, I'm leaning on the side of delete. However, no offical vote as yet. JesseW 05:02, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.