Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperspin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperspin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Freeware with no assertion of notability. The article states that the software is still very new, and the only reference provided is a Youtube video - which qualifies as a primary source. Given that there are no secondary sources available, it will have to be a delete for the time being. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyDelete - No assertion of notability, even claims that the software is new, unsourced, and the external link for the "official site" is a site about some website monitoring company. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:CSD says nothing about software. Intelligentsiumreview 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, I confused the individual/company notability CSD criteria with this. GraYoshi2x►talk 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:CSD says nothing about software. Intelligentsiumreview 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable product, no reliable sources. Intelligentsiumreview 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominated. I would echo Intelligentsium here, CSD does not provide for the deletion of this sort of article. Crafty (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SAVE, I am working on this. please see my reference I just added!!! Help me out, I am new to this! :) Firefoxian (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I admire your moxie, kid. I don't see how the xgaming reference establishes notability nor am I convinced it's a reliable source. Crafty (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, ANYWAY. I am just learning from your responses. You could say it's judgement by trial and error. So thanks for feedback. Now I am going to restudy and try for better refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take 3! Quick everybody look! These seem like valuable references to me. Question:some sites are forum sites only, no main pages; so can they be used as references here when they post as news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of them are forums. The third one is a press release. Our guidelines on reliable sources excludes those, given that they are sites that accept input from anyone. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain to me how press releases are not valid. Wouldn't that be saying that all news organizations do not have valid information? Or are you indicating that this maybe just released information by the people who created it? Anyway, I didn't see anything on this in the pages I have been referred to and I did a text search. I feel a little ignored, like I am getting robotic responses, when I just need direction. This is OBVIOUSLY a valid piece of software as ANYONE can see. Literally, you can SEE this on youtube. This is what you referred me to: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." So now I have added some more youtube videos. Sorry if I sound rude. Firefoxian (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are written by the subject. By that virtue alone they are not valid sources to establish notability. Youtube videos are also published by the subject. If not, they should be flagged as possible copyright infringement, and you should link, instead, to the source that was infringed on.
- What you need is the kind of reference that the creators of Hyperspin cannot change or edit without involving their attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please note that notability (which is the make-or-break inclusion criterion in Wikipedia) is not the same thing as existence (which is usually not a criterion, we have plenty of articles on notable hoaxes). You have asserted only the latter. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Copyright infringement? Have you even looked at my article? This is not copyrighted. Again with the robotics. Anyway, you are wasting my time, because I asked for HELP. It is now apparent to me that your job is only to stop things that don't "qualify". I am no longer interested in this conversation since you cannot actually be constructive, but instead talk about RED TAPE. I'll get help elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you say I'm accusing you of copyright infringement, that means you must read my argument again. I haven't said anything that comes even remotely close to that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Copyright infringement? Have you even looked at my article? This is not copyrighted. Again with the robotics. Anyway, you are wasting my time, because I asked for HELP. It is now apparent to me that your job is only to stop things that don't "qualify". I am no longer interested in this conversation since you cannot actually be constructive, but instead talk about RED TAPE. I'll get help elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain to me how press releases are not valid. Wouldn't that be saying that all news organizations do not have valid information? Or are you indicating that this maybe just released information by the people who created it? Anyway, I didn't see anything on this in the pages I have been referred to and I did a text search. I feel a little ignored, like I am getting robotic responses, when I just need direction. This is OBVIOUSLY a valid piece of software as ANYONE can see. Literally, you can SEE this on youtube. This is what you referred me to: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." So now I have added some more youtube videos. Sorry if I sound rude. Firefoxian (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of them are forums. The third one is a press release. Our guidelines on reliable sources excludes those, given that they are sites that accept input from anyone. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take 3! Quick everybody look! These seem like valuable references to me. Question:some sites are forum sites only, no main pages; so can they be used as references here when they post as news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if this article contained only content based on verifiable, reliable sources, it would be a blank page. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional and not verifiable.--camr nag 12:28, 12 October 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.