Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checksums calculator
- 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. clear consensus--no sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checksums calculator[edit]
- Checksums 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)
Product is non-notable. Originally speedily deleted, this has been recreated in a less promotional tone, however I don't believe it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Creator is the developer of the product also. Nikthestoned 13:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Nikthestoned 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Nikthestoned 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks even one reliable independent secondary source WP:RS as required by WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Not surprisingly, given the somewhat trivial nature of the product, Google searches fail to return anything beyond just a bunch of download sites. Msnicki (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr. Nikthestoned. Product is non-notable!? Are you so sure? Did you know that is the unique checksums calculator program witch is cross-platform developed with an open source compiler? What do we hope to find in Google searches when application has been released only 4 days ago? From the other hand, I show a lot of similar articles in Wikipedia and really I don't understand why should be deleted. Anyway if must be deleted, of course I accept it, and I apologize to you all. Regards Sideris-efthimios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideris-efthimios (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On Wikipedia, "notability" and other terms have slightly more technical meanings than you might expect, so it's worth reading the material at WP:GNG. Here, it's not enough that something seems notable, i.e., that people not connected to the subject should take note (because it seems notable), they have to actually do it and they have to do it in reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS. As a practical matter, for a typical software product, that usually means citing a couple magazine articles or mentions in a couple books. Currently, the article doesn't have that and when I Googled, I couldn't find any, not surprising if it's only 4 days old. Maybe the product will soon become quite a sensation. But Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL. For more on how the AfD discussion here works, you'll find helpful information at WP:AFDFORMAT.
I can tell you feel passionate about this subject and making a contribution. That's great, even if your article isn't ready yet. What you might consider is requesting that your article be moved back into your user space where you can continue to work on it while you look for sources. To get useful coverage, you might consider a simple guerrilla marketing strategy of pestering journalists you think cover this sort of thing to see if you can get them interested in trying it out and writing something. Good luck.
P.S. You should sign your posts using "~~~~" as explained at WP:SIGNATURE. Msnicki (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On Wikipedia, "notability" and other terms have slightly more technical meanings than you might expect, so it's worth reading the material at WP:GNG. Here, it's not enough that something seems notable, i.e., that people not connected to the subject should take note (because it seems notable), they have to actually do it and they have to do it in reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS. As a practical matter, for a typical software product, that usually means citing a couple magazine articles or mentions in a couple books. Currently, the article doesn't have that and when I Googled, I couldn't find any, not surprising if it's only 4 days old. Maybe the product will soon become quite a sensation. But Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL. For more on how the AfD discussion here works, you'll find helpful information at WP:AFDFORMAT.
- Don't be silly. It's a lot easier said than done to get a serious journalist excited enough to write something about a new product. That's why we find these sources WP:RELIABLE. They won't just write garbage PR stuff about garbage products. They have reputations and editors and readers who expect them to filter out the noise. I'm merely explaining how, if one is passionate about anything, he would go about establishing genuine notability. Those are the people to convince, not us here on WP. Do I think he's likely to have much luck? Uhm, no. But I'm not passionate about this product and maybe I'm a pessimist. What I do know is that WP is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL. Msnicki (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable media mentions. Both a Google and Yahoo! search didn't bring any notable sources, except for the company's website. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 31 July 2011 (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.