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. The keep !votes have failed to provide anything other than asserting this is one member of a category of software, some of which have articles. This is not notability. Courcelles 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was PROD'd as "No indication of WP:notability. References given are either from the company that produces it or download sites that sell it. Seems spammy." I agree with this (except for the spam part, I don't assert that it is spam, but rather that it is not notable), hence the AfD. SudoGhost™ 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I say, KEEP. This article shouldn't be deleted but rather expanded. It holds the same WP:NOTE as these other PDF readers Acrobat_Reader PDF_reader Portable Document Format As we can see, there is a list of PDF readers here, List of PDF software. It's obviously a legitimate PDF reader and, It seems to be written without the intention of wanton spam. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, there's not even an assertion of notability in the article, and no reliable third-party sources to show notability, only links to the product's website and download mirrors. That other PDF software exists does not make this one notable. It most certainly does not have the same notability as Acrobat Reader. - SudoGhost™ 09:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I googled it and it returns a whole lot of hits. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS are not a test of notability. - SudoGhost™ 09:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned google hits as a way for a test under WP:WEIGHT. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT is not for establishing the notability of an article, but for determining the NPOV of content within an article. - SudoGhost™ 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned WP:WEIGHT Note** this was taken from WP:NNC. And, this article meets WP:FAILN and deletion should be of last resort. I will place a notability tag on the article to see if there is any help out there. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the speedy deletion was a bit rushed. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not submitted for speedy deletion (to my knowledge, unless this is a recreated speedy). I did make an attempt to find sources to establish notability, for my part I found none. If notability can be established, the article can certainly be recreated, but this article is not notable. Perhaps it should be moved into the creator's userspace. - SudoGhost™ 10:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the speedy delete. Now, what constitutes notability for PDFZilla? A reliable WP:SOURCE? All of these are third party reviews and, they are from A reliable sources. Here are a few, even though they offer downloads. http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,75753/description.html, http://dottech.org/gotdreviews/20672/, http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/PDFZilla-Review-102241.shtml, http://www.softsea.com/review/PDFZilla.html Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The key issue here is the lack of independent, reliable sources for what is essentially an advert. Most of the sources are Self-published and the references for awards are from companies that sell the product therefore lacking reliability and independence. It is difficult to find any independent sources, let alone "Multiple reliable, independent sources" per WP:notability. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as advertising/promotional. No indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of media coverage. All I could having to do with coverage is this PCWorld review....not enough to sustain this article, which would need to be fixed to meet Wikipedia guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - on the ground of consistency. There are several PDF readers listed in Category:PDF readers and I don't see why this one should be singled out for deletion. "Other stuff exists" is not necessarily a justification for deletion. Quote from Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Biscuittin (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a case of that being used correctly. The only basis of your keep rationale seems to be that other PDF readers exist. The others have established notability; this does not. - SudoGhost 10:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDFZilla has only been around for 2 months so it has not had time to establish notability. You are discriminating against new products in favour of long-established ones. Note - I have no connection with PDFZilla. Biscuittin (talk) 19:30, 24 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.