Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@icon sushi (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 August 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Consensus here suggests that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. That several sources simply mention the topic is not usually enough to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@icon sushi

Delete. Weakly sourced non-notable software. Given sources do not establish notability. This article was previously deleted for non-notability (though that was several years ago). Some guy (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an icon editor. To note, the "recommendation" from Citrix is not a recommendation, they're using it for point of demonstration. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's an icon converter, not an editor, either way I don't see the relevance; I fixed the wording to "suggests" instead of "recommends"; I don't really either reasons as justification for deletion. --Hm2k (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All 4 references are considered reliable sources.
- [1] is written by Karl Hodge of .net magazine.
- [2] is written by "Kenny Weytens" +ZDnet who is a clearly established writer for ZDnet.
- [3] is written by "Michael Diestelberg" +winfuture, a member of the editing staff of winfuture.
- [4] is a support page where Citrix suggests using @icon sushi to troubleshoot it's own software. There's inherited notability when such a large corporation openly endorses use.

--Hm2k (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
- One source is a product discussion. There are zillions of those in computer magazines about all and sundry.
- One source is a download link.
- Two sources mention the use of the software in an article of more general scope; they are explicitly not about @icon sushi. --Pgallert (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The above issue came up in another discussion. I don't know the context here and haven't checked links but consider the situation where you have a piece of software that is used in some scientific papers. It implements some algrorithm ( probably published in academic journals to give it known properties useful to scientific authors ) and is only mentioned in a few sentences in "methods" section or paper and maybe some acknowledgements. CNN hasn't picked up on it yet. I would consider this to be notable even if no articles solely about the product exist. The wiki article could reasonably state, " this is a commcercial implementation of the foo algorithm [ foo papers ] and has been used to analyze blah[blah paper], duh[duh paper] etc". I guess you could make a case for making the article on the foo algorithm rather than the software, but many passing mentions depending on context, could establish notability ( if you can find a policy or guideline to the contrary fine but if this is just essay issues, I'd be more concerned with what the intended wiki reader thinks). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom absolutely nothing is noteworthy about this product. JBsupreme (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ZDNET review establishes notability. Note that it's not just a download page but an actual review written by the ZDNET staff. Laurent (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The ZDNET review is brief and its contents do not establish significant notability for the subject. Some guy (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Your comment seems unjustified. There is clearly significant coverage for notability. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. ZDnet are credible publishers and their authors are trustworthy and authoritative.
Delete No references from reliable sources with proper editorial conntrol, looks like product cruft to me. --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have noticed that editors here are not clarifying their statements by including references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies to support their decision. It's too easy to be passive or ignorant. I encourage you to be specific about exactly what is in violation here. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lack of notability seems to stem from a lack of multiple reliable sources. We trim it down to the ZDNet article, and that's but one review. There's plenty of precedent for that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There's 4 reliable sources that all mention @icon sushi. The ZDnet and Winfuture links are short write ups, the WindowsMag and Citrix are reliable sources that demonstrate usage which support the first two sources. Please remember that this is only a stub and there are more sources available. --Hm2k (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To support my last comment, i've added more references[5], including references from allbusiness.com and from Vietnamese newspaper VnExpress. There's now 6 (fairly) reliable sources, surely that's sufficient for notability for now... --Hm2k (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but calling something "non-notable" doesn't make it so, especially for an article with six reliable sources. Laurent (talk) 14:08, 9 August 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.