Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apitron pdf rasterizer

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. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apitron pdf rasterizer[edit]

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

Delete non notable software fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Speedy delete,~~ as an unambiguous copyright infringement, and failing that delete as lacking any evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. This article has now been created three times by a single purpose editor who is clearly here to promote this product. The first version of the article was a verbatim copy of http://apitron.com/Product/pdf-rasterizer, and both unambiguous copyright infringement and unambiguous promotion. Subsequent versions have been reworded to make them not so blatantly promotional, and also evidently to try to address the copyright issue. However, it still contains substantial text copied word for word from the page I have cited, and the rest of it is a sufficiently close paraphrase to make it perfectly clear that it is copied from there too. I have also spent some time searching, and found no evidence whatever of notability. The product appears to have been released in June 2013, and if it ever will achieve notability, it hasn't yet. I could speedily delete it, but, having already done so once, I shall instead nominate it for speedy deletion to see if another administrator agrees with me. If so, I think it will be time to consider salting the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything ambigously promotional in it and as such software is not eligible for a7 that is the only reason I didn't do what you're doing. I think it's the right course to speedy it I just hate getting those freaking dumb I didn't speedy delete because I am policy wanking 8) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current version is not promotional, and it was probably a mistake on my part to include promotion in my deletion rationale when I deleted the last version. However, I still think that both that version and the present one are copyright infringements. Ultimately, though, both promotion and copyright are minor issues, as they can easily be put right, whereas no amount of rewriting the article will turn this non-notable product into a notable one. For that reason, I have changed my mind, and I am dropping the speedy deletion nomination, so that we can see whether there is consensus that this article should be deleted for lack of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product. I nominated an earlier version for promotional reasons, and yes, there most certainly was a promotional tone explaining how useful and helpful the product was for "you." So, it most certainly sounded like a sales pitch more than anything encyclopedic. I cannot find any reviews of this product, awards, or otherwise that would support notability for an individual product nor general coverage that would fulfill the general notability guideline. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no significant RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2013 (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.