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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed advertising speedy, article doesn't really assert meeting WP:N/WP:SOFTWARE. Consider me in favor of deletion unless sources are added. --W.marsh 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not advertising, and that is that. What sources are you talking about? A source that shows there is an article or something about the program? Well, http://www.snapfiles.com/get/imageanalyzer.html is one I found on a quick search. Also, a Google search for "Image Analyzer" yields almost 500,000 hits. That is almost double of other image editors that have articles. Looks pretty notable to me. It looks like it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. --Althepal 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "image analyzer" is fairly common. The bulk of those hits have nothing to do with this subject. IrishGuy ^talk 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy: Still, it has plenty of hits for the program and does have reviews on it. Althepal 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including the latest version number in the search yields almost 15000 hits - as much as some image programs with articles. Althepal 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not to be rude, but did you look at the links in my nomination? It doesn't assert meeting those guidelines. --W.marsh 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying. Althepal 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the pages or not? You said this article "doesn't meet any criteria for deletion" but it doesn't assert meeting the two inclusion guidelines I mentioned. --W.marsh 04:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to have at least two publications about it. http://www.freewarefiles.com/review_3_36_5125.html is some user reviews. Its hard to believe there is no publication about it, so I encourage you to look for one before deleting it. I did a little bit of searching but didn't spot a real publication. So, maybe it is not notable. If it is deleted, make sure you delete all the information from the comparison of raster graphics editors, too. Althepal 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No assertion of notability and the "review" looks like a copy of the program description. GHits are a bad way to show notability, especially with such a common term. This search turns up ~500 sites, mostly download mirrors. —Dgies^t c 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Artweaver 0.4.3" turns up 62 hits. I wasn't including the version number in the quote; I left it outside of the quote just to try to limit the hits to ones about the program. --Althepal 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like it may be notable. From the site it looks reasonably well known. For me to want to keep it though, it needs reputable third party evidence of notability. If that is added I will be inclined to keep. meshach 08:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to be the only small free program offering a number of important features. But I suppose that is officially irrelevant to this process of determining if it is worthy of mention anywhere here... Six published review sources: "advanced features not even available in professional photo suites"[1] "user specified filters in spatial and frequency domain"[2] "teriffic program"[3] "rated: 3/5 cows"[4] "Color model conversion: RGB, CMY, HSI, Lab, YCbCr, YIQ and PCA"[5] "rated: 5/6 ducks"[6]--69.87.199.81 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although some of your reviews seem to just copy the main website, others don't. I'd say it is notable. Althepal 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sign of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. The "reviews" listed above are merely brief paragraphs for download mirrors. IrishGuy ^talk 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFTWARE doesn't say the reviews have to be long. And 69.87.199.81, your vote won't count unless you create an account. Althepal 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it states that they must be multiple non-trivial published works. A paragraph is trivial. IrishGuy ^talk 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it define a paragraph as trivial? Maybe it means a sentence is trivial. Furthermore, there is more than one paragraph of information on some of these "reviews". Althepal 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. An anon with a valid argument is welcome to participate in this discussion. —Dgies^t c 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my wording. Althepal 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. A couple of the links provided by the anon appear to be independent (albeit short) reviews. It's enough for verification and a good faith argument for notability. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the argumentation and evidence of 69. is very relevant and useful, it is insufficient to show notability. All of the reviews are either trivial, non-independednt or both. A paragraph (even a glowing one) at a couple of download sites is not enough for a freeware program. Eluchil404 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources outside of download sites are provided, --Daniel J. Leivick 23:41, 16 February 2007 (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.