Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TimeSheet

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. The rationales for keeping the article are not valid (time of nomination, future notability, usefulness). —fetch ·comms 01:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TimeSheet

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

This new article does not show any reference showing notability. It is written by single author with no contribution outside of writing about this software. This is an advertisement. Miami33139 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Miami33139 managed to nominate the article for deletion 33 minutes after user Onnop (talk · contribs), a new user, finished creating it (and less than an hour after Onnop started the article). That seems extremely premature to me.
Lifehacker.com, a notable website, has published an article about TimeSheet, which I think goes some way to establishing notability.
The article does not read like advertisement: it briefly (too briefly!) describes the product, then explains its most notable feature: that it automagically decides which project a user is working on from the user's activity.
Let's give the article at least a couple of months, then perhaps take another look at it. Cheers, CWC 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the way we work. References first. We write from references. We do not leave non-notable and non-reference material laying around for a few months just because. Writing new article without notability and without references should be speedy delete criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should change the way you work when that way loses value for the people using these pages to seek information. TheRonWhite
  - References first? That may be the ideal but it is rarely the practice, and we do not (and should not) delete articles just for being less than ideal. Many valuable articles started as poorly referenced stubs.
    More importantly, Miami's argument is irrelevant: the article did have a reference! Unfortunately, it was in the "External links" section (exactly the sort of mistake for which we should not penalize new editors). I've just added it to the article as a proper reference.
    CWC 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delay the question for a few days AFDing/SDing a newbie user's first article should be consider a form of BITING. Lets give the new guy a chance to get his article up to WP standards.--*Kat* (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominating editor needs to review the procedures under WP:BEFORE, primarily as it relates to #10 on the list. This was an inappropriate nomination. The better choice would have been to tag the article to alert the new editor to the need for references. Cindamuse (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [1], Uncited information should be deleted, and the burden to provide references is on the author. Miami33139 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a very useful (possibly revolutionary) product that I expect we will hear quite a bit about in the years to come. Speaking as former remote employee, I can say with certaintly that this product is notable enough for an article.--*Kat* (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this does turn out to be a revolutionary product, I'm sure we'll see another article in the future, when it is. As for now, this is an advertisement for an obscure freeware product. Whether it is good, bad, or mediocre product is no matter, an ad is an ad is an ad... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly. An entirely unreferenced article about some minor office software that apparently keeps track of the time during which documents are viewed. Google News is not going to yield any relevant results as is, and adding the name of the publisher results in zero hits.[2] Promotional intent is obvious, both from the article itself and the tenor of some of the contents of this discussion. There is no policy that requires the passage of time before an article can be nominated for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be freeware, but it's still an ad. I don't think the time before flagging is problematic in this case. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course - I came across this program (and subsequently this discussion) while looking for software, preferably free, that would let me track my time for my employer. TimeSheet is one of the few programs I found that met my requirments. If the people wishing to kick it out because they consider it an advertisement were to have their way, they would accomplish only hiding from me, and others, information that may be valuable. I'd like the freedom to decide that myself. I'm a newbie, and I don't know your criteria for advertisements nor your prejudice against them--other than the fact, as we all know, that they can be untruthful and irritating. But often ads can be a valuable source of information. Don't kill the message because you don't like the messenger.TheRonWhite— TheRonWhite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Miami33139 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have added some references, concerning the related methodology of Getting_Things_Done and articles on the internet. Onnop (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) to those who have called the article an advertisement: on what criteria do you make that judgment? To me, it reads like a neutral, even bland description of the software, without any superlatives, inducements, comparisons or buzzwords. Would you call this article about a free computer game an advertisement? How about this article about a free file system? (You might want to refer to the TimeSheet article as of 06:06, 9 August 2010 UTC.)
This is a genuine question. I'm asking it here because I suspect it is relevant to this AfD (and also out of curiosity). CWC 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just edited the article some more, adding the lifehacker.com article as a proper reference, which may affect some of the !votes above. Cheers, CWC 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC) who hates spammy download websites and un-distinctive product names[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.