Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biorhythms Calculator
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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biorhythms Calculator[edit]
- Biorhythms Calculator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication is given as to how this software would meet the general notability guideline. I can't find any independent and reliable sources discussing the product. Contested PROD. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Here are at least 5 urls where this product is featured: http://download.cnet.com/Biorhythms-Calculator-2010/3000-2056_4-10920650.html , http://www.download3000.com/download_54950.html , http://www.brothersoft.com/biorhythms-calculator-2010-253317.html , http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Misc__Utilities/Biorhythms_Calculator_2010.html , http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Home-Education/Biorhythms-Calculator.shtml , and there are many more pages. In addition it is one of the most feature-complete software on biorhythms. --George (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Download sites don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do, via awards, and through independent user reviews, and this one has been reviewed in at least several places, and received numerous awards. --George (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to substantiate you claim that the product has received awards, and that it has been reviewed, by reliable secondary sources. The links you provide above show none of this. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a couple of links to awards: http://www.coredownload.com/download-Biorhythms-Calculator-2010-82194.html , http://www.sharewareconnection.com/biorhythms-calculator-2010.htm , User's Choice - http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/Biorhythms_Plus_2008_48565_p/ (this is the first version of this program, and was called differently then - I know because I have been its user since that time), http://www.filebuzz.com/fileinfo/56430/Biorhythms_Calculator_2010.html, Editor's choice - http://www.1st-download.com/download/free/hobbies/biorhythms-calculator-2010/51253.html and http://www.123-free-download.com/download/hobbies/biorhythms-calculator-2010/86728.html - these are just some. They list more awards on their home page: http://www.binarymark.com/Products/BiorhythmCalculator/default.aspx. I as a user have tried many different biorhythm programs over the years, and in my opinion this one has the most features compared to other. So why should it be left out? In fact I think it would be nice if another one or two popular biorhythm programs would be featured here as well. Biorhythms are not as popular as they used to be in the 80s, so of course this software (or any other biorhythm or nice-oriented) cannot be as popular as say Skype, but in its area it is quite popular and recent. --George (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be left out because there are as far as I can see, and as far as you have shown, no reliable secondary source anywhere that even briefly mention this piece of software (which is why I would oppose even a merge). That a download site has put an image saying "editors choice" etc next to the standard publishers description, with no comment or indication what this "award" is, how it is awarded, does not in itself show notability as we can't judge what the significance of "editors choice" from 1st-download.com etc means. The idea of a meaningful award is that by it being awarded, there would be some critical commentary on whatever has revived it and so there would be reliable sources that could be used to show notability. All this really boils down to is does there exist reliable sources discussing this product in a non-trivial way. The same could be asked (but not here) of your other two Binary Mark software articles, FLV Video Downloader and Batch Image Processor. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, however I object. As far as notability goes, especially in the area of niche-oriented software products, it is highly subjective. For someone who has no interest in biorhythm software, this article is totally worthless. There is however, no concensus on whther Inclusionism or Deletionism is better (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia). As far as the sources go, I think, and in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS, the page for the latest version of it at Download.com should suffice as at least 1 reliable third party source - http://download.cnet.com/Biorhythms-Calculator-2010/3000-2056_4-10920650.html. They do check what they publish, before publishing it. And they do check what software publishers put in description to see if it actually matches the software itself.--George (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be left out because there are as far as I can see, and as far as you have shown, no reliable secondary source anywhere that even briefly mention this piece of software (which is why I would oppose even a merge). That a download site has put an image saying "editors choice" etc next to the standard publishers description, with no comment or indication what this "award" is, how it is awarded, does not in itself show notability as we can't judge what the significance of "editors choice" from 1st-download.com etc means. The idea of a meaningful award is that by it being awarded, there would be some critical commentary on whatever has revived it and so there would be reliable sources that could be used to show notability. All this really boils down to is does there exist reliable sources discussing this product in a non-trivial way. The same could be asked (but not here) of your other two Binary Mark software articles, FLV Video Downloader and Batch Image Processor. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The article on biorhythms lightly covers calculations. In 1976 Casio sold a hand-held "biolator" http://www.retrothing.com/2006/05/convergence_vii.html My opinion is first, that this product is junk--you can't measure someone's i'ching, and second, that I have never heard of it and I keep up with the pseudoscience literature.TheThomas (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Biorhythm Calculator Software is a valuable addition to all the different biorhythm software programs available. It is the most powerful because it allows you to calculate and visually see the biorhythm, I-Ching and Mastery cycles.
The most valuable part of this software is that it allows you to identify the compatibility levels for numerous individuals. This is important for families, businesses and sports teams. Ultimately, it is the team that works best together that wins in life, business and sports.
The technological advances in this software in unmatched in the industry. I own many of the software programs available. I was very impressed with the Biorhythm Calculator software when it first appeared. It was a software breakthrough...the best in the industry.
With each new version, the programmers add more powerful features that are trend-setting. No one does it better than the programmers. They deserve a place in the Biorhythm Hall Of Fame.
- Delete and oppose merge. There is absolutely no indication of notability for this software. There are no independent reviews. There are no significant awards. The so-called awards and ones handed out by various download websites and do not establish any sort of notability. There is no reason to merge infromation about this software in to a biorhythms article when coverage about it amounts to zero. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 13 November 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.