Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySpeed

Add links
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. SoWhy 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpeed[edit]

MySpeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software; reads much like an advert. Whilst the idea of playback at greater speeds may be notable no notability for this implementation is proved, nor can I find any myself. Blowdart | talk 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While there are 9 references, none appear to be relevant to the topic. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are relevant to the Background section of the article. Rosso1876 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MySpeed software is new and the only one of its kind at the moment; thus it is hard to get coverage by mainstream online sources. However, MySpeed has been featured in many Blogs recently and was a Featured Download on LifeHacker. LifeHacker is considered notable because it has passed the test for Wikipedia. LifeHacker has also received many accolades from mainstream sources such as Time Magazine, CNET, Wired Magazine, etc. You had removed the section to Variable Speed Playback on the Web, but the New York Times article from 2003 stated Perhaps the most popular is Enounce's 2XAV plug-in. The MySpeed software is an implantation of the same Enounce Time-scale tailor technology for Flash media where this capability did not exist. The New York times has said our previous software at the time could be considered the Most Popular, I would argue that the NYT article is relevant to MySpeed software and does give reliability and notability to this article. Also, Blowdart has said that Variable Speed Playback is notable and the Wikipedia articles Words per minute and Time-compressed speech support this. Shouldn't being the only implementation (for Flash) of a notable technology make this implementation notable. Rosso1876 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prior to this most recent rewrite, i canvased a myriad of similar pages for software tools: Many of which charge for the product:
cooledit (single outbound link), MindManager, Cooliris, DragonDictate (two external link references), WinZip, RAR, WinRAR
These tools and their pages are useful for users. The submitted page is no different. The current page has a similar link count to legitimate independent third party pages refering to this technology. I have done the homework on this review, I would appreciate a direct response to me over a phone or other medium that points out difference between this new page and the items i have referenced. I have carefully read the pages referenced above which have passed the "standard" and beleive whole heartedly that this page complies with that standard. Thank you for reviewing the submitted page and addressing your concerns within the text or removing the spam label. DonHejna (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the comments so far address my original points about the other software pages listed. I am willing to remove anything that is objectively advertising "jargon" and would welcome edits from you or others but so far no one has made reference to specific statements in the article or changes needed. Given that i reviewed the following product pages and found no discernable difference in "notability" between their products or utilitys and ours I feel i have been give no instructions for how to modify the page and basically been told to go away -a very disappointing user experience with the community:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DonHejna (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately other stuff exists isn't an argument you can use. Nor is notability inherited, so being a replacement for something else that may have been notable isn't enough. Given that you've slipped into language should as "our" and "we" there are now COI concerns as well --Blowdart | talk 21:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that users do not "own" articles. MuZemike (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have reviewed the Other Stuff Exists other stuff exists page and noted "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I find *the* article submitted to fall well within the range of the SIX (6) examples i provided. Statistically that's significant and begs the question what is it about this one of six articles that has offended the editors while the six other articles remain unflagged, unquestioned and contain far less reference material AND exist in the same category in the encyclopedia. If the editors told me, "thank you" we have flagged the six articles referenced i would feel the process was perhaps consistent. Again i await specific recommendations for modification to the current page to bring it into compliance so that it may provide useful information to users of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.200.42 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that the six articles you mention are of widely used and notable products. Cooledit has about 12000 mention at Google Scholar, MindManager has a ton of books on how to use it, Cooliris has been all over teh blogs, WinZip... it's Winzip fer chrissakes! -- etc. I'm truly sorry, but you are going to have to come up with a better argument than Other Stuff Exists. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at the facts regarding Cooliris. Mvuijlst cites that it is all over the blogs. I reviewed that entry's history and it was first submitted in Feb 11, 2007. How many blogs was it all over at that time (nearly two years ago when the product hadn't been around for more than a month or two? Likely no where near 12000 mentioned. If all over is the criteria, please provide a number. Again we very likely have more references and more mentions than Cooliris did at the time it was first accepted. The history for Cooliris reads: (cur) (last) 10:56, 11 February 2007 Austinshoemaker (Talk | contribs) (This article had been submitted prematurely. The revision being submitted is factual, balanced, and relevant in the context of web HCI.) and was heavily edited in its first few days by a single advocate. I see no difference between the articles. What is going on here? DonHejna (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MySpeed also has been in plenty of Blogs lately including LifeHacker as I mentioned above but was told Blogs are not a reliable source and these were removed from the article. I'm sure Bloggers would say differently but that's another debate. However, I'm not trying to make an argument that Other Stuff Exists, but I couldn't let this slip by. I've read the Other Stuff Exists, and the important point is consistency, perhaps we should all try to bring the other articles up to the WP standard. (Revised) Rosso1876 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold the phone — The IP must obviously be DonHejna. Please explain. I am surely hoping you plain forgot to login and failed again to sign your comment. Otherwise, there may be problems. If that (i.e. forgetting to log in) is the case, then be advised that you cannot say keep twice in the same discussion. You can discuss all you like, but as mentioned in the template up top, this is not a majority vote. For now, I will assume you made a mistake and striking the second keep. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the above comment was from DonHejna and I'm sure it was just a mistake that he forgot to log in before posting his comment. It's a newness thing and not an attempt to be deceptive.Rosso1876 (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no subterfuge here. I am not familiar with the complexities and protocols of logging in and editing. Apparently i did not log in for one of my comments but it was infact mine. I added the "keep" to my comments in an effort to simplifiy and streamling the discussion points, thinking this would aid anyone reviewing the discussion. I did so after seeing that the editor had placed "delete" and thought the protocol was to identify ones position before each comment.

This process of a some priviledged few, making inconsistent judgements about "notability" smacks of the very thing wikipedia was supposed to be differentiating itself from. Where is the democratic process in the body of knowledge when an earnest effort is met with vague one word indictments rather than suggestions for changes required to bring an article into compliance with a nebulous and inconsistently applied standard. It's like being imprisoned without being told what one did wrong. This whole experience has soured my view of wikipedia and its editors. I would like an editor to explain the appeal and escalation process to me or point me to the protocol. -DonHejna —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonHejna (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sole article is a brief Lifehacker article. The New York Times is not about MySpeed so stretching that out to claim that a NY times article that happens to mention a related product establishes ntoability is tenuous at best. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MySpeed&oldid=1070203774"