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. I've taken into account both sides of the argument here. I've taken into account the SPAs, and I've weighed them appropriately. It's clear from the consensus shown here that MagicView is not notable enough for its own article. Xclamation point 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously G11 (by FreeRangeFrog YSWT (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)) speedy recreated with essentially the same content. This is basically an advertisement (accord. FreeRangeFrog YSWT (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)) for the subject plugin/extension, with no claims of notability beyond simply existing. §FreeRangeFrog 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@FREERANGEFROG: What is your issue ? First, one user who was involved in stopping you from improperly getting another article deleted edited their opinion here from neutral to 'keep'. You then immediately undid their edit so it appeared they were still neutral.

Now, I have made a very detailed reply to Dori, including listing specific web reference examples, and very specific wikipedia policy quotes, and then you tried to do the same trick. Dude or dudette, you have some issues. Please do not delete my comments. If you have something to say, please do, but please do not vandalize what others have written. I am now the second person you've done this to. YSWT (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. What I did was revert text inserted into already existing comments (including an {{spa}} tag), which is against the accepted talk page practices. In any case, the IP address that graced the discussion with a "keep" vote seems to be dedicated to inserting links to your article on other articles. I'm sure the relationship between "them" and you could be established quickly if I actually thought it would make any difference whatsoever to the outcome of this discussion. §FreeRangeFrog 18:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just clicked on the editor's link and they are not "dedicated to inserting links" in other articles. They added a single, one word reference to the article in a multi-reference list. YSWT (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the article "basically an advertisement" 'as compared to similar articles about similar software. Microsoft Word Viewer is an analagous product, essentially a viewer for particular data formats. How -- if at all-- does this article differ from the Microsoft Word Viewer article such that this article is "basically an advertisement" ?

Moreover, what, *if any* are the objective criteria you applied to label the article "basically an advertisement" ? YSWT (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Criteria are listed in 'Overview of the AFD deletion process' as "three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

If the article were written as an 'advertisement' to sell something, Neutral point of view would be issue. Since the article was taken both in form and content and WORDING directly from another neutral article along similar subject, NOTHING in the article is not neutral. everything is fact based, and the facts selected were the facts another author selected for a different software. (just correct facts inserted, eg., which data formats can be viewed).

The article just cites to listed references and explains WHAT the software is.

Original research is not an issue, nor is copyright violation.

Article was carefully supported by references for full verifiability of the content, and to allow further research by those interested/researching the subject. YSWT (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, there are references; no, they are not independent references. I couldn't find any, inside or outside the article. To the article's defender: WP:GNG always applies. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain. Drmies complains "couldn't find any [independent references], inside or outside the article."

1. Drmies, what in the world is an 'independent reference' to your view ? Why do you wholly ignore the fact that for many/most software articles the references are to the software's (or hardware's) offical spec/information sheets and faqs.

If you would have looked OBJECTIVELY you would have seen that the MS Viewer article (which was the template for this one) has multiple references to MicroSoft's own website, and only a single external.

EDIT: now understand that Drmies isn't talking about references for the information provided by the article, but references tho establish internet buzz about the topic. deleted prior response and point to discussion below. YSWT (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for "WP:GNG always applies. " you might go and look at that closely. "Notability" in that context does *not* relate to content. It relates to whether an article should stand on its own as a separate article in wikipedia. Specifically from your reference "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people[10]. Instead, various content policies govern article content."

Articles discussing specific software specifications are by and large in wikipedia each treated in a separate article. Probably this is best to *avoid* advertisements. For example, if you're point is the software article isn't "Notable" and thus should be included in another article on a broader topic, (again 'Notability' is NOT to censor content, but to determine what should be in discreet articles) then my own view is that turns software articles into adverts. When you place a particular program's specs and info INSIDE ANOTHER TOPIC that seems to me, personally, to be intrusive.

Seems best-- and farthest as possible from advertising, to keep software in its own article, where only someone looking to find info on that specific software will read.

For advertising purposes seems MUCH better to stick software info in some other highly read topic, hoping to introduce the software to new users. Since that is *not* the purpose here, does not seem helpful or appropriate.

By keeping the software as its own wikipedia entry, the info/specs/reference material is accessible TO THOSE LOOKING FOR IT, but is not 'thrust' upon those interested in other topics, etc. Ie. keeping the software to its own article keeps it a reference item.

Again, if this was not clear-- 'Notability' is NOT a criteria to censor content (at least about places, software, wildlife, etc) from wikipedia. It is a criteria for deciding if info should be in its own article. Anyhow. YSWT (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has specifically asked, and is working to INCREASE the scope of the software articles. Specifically seeking to affirmatively increase both the "quality and quantity of information about computing technology available on Wikipedia" and specifically including articles on software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWT (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think I'm the one who does the complaining here. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah i think we were talking past each other. I thought you were saying the article wasn't a good one because there were no references to the information provided. Now I understand that concept of references is different than you mean when you talk about references. You mean internet buzz. Ie. "wikipedia articles have lot of verifiable references" not like the actual material is referenced, but like wikipedia articles just repeat subjects that lots of other websites talk about. Nothing written directed at you personally, hope that's mutual. YSWT (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some information is obviously best sourced from spec sheets or other places related to the creators but to be considered notable a topic has to be covered by someone else than the creators. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: For SOFTWARE the developer is most likely the most credible source of info. If the developer is shown by external references to be reliable, for SOFTWARE it makes sense to allow the developer as source. For example, microsoft website should be legitimate source for microsoft products. This is exactly the case with the template used to create this article, [Microsoft Word Viewer]. If google developer of subject software, is clearly actual, credible, reliable source. I understand this is not the *general* rule for reliability, nor should it be. But it seems to be the norm with existing articles on software, and makes sense for SOFTWARE topics. YSWT (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable software add-on, unless reliable, independent sources can be found. I've had a go, but a determined Google search doesn't bring back anything that near half-way fulfills the criteria. Whilst comparisons are not to be encouraged in deletion discussions (and despite the fact that using Google to prove a point is, well, dodgy), I think that comparing that search to this one should give those likening this software to MS Word Viewer considerable pause for thought. If this software becomes as widely-used and notable then sources should not be an issue. Until then, however, I don't think it warrants an article. onebravemonkey 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I cannot find any reliable sources (note: the product's website, its own docs nor Internet forums are considered reliable secondary sources) that can establish notability of this software. And yes, lack of notability is a reason for deletion per the deletion policy. MuZemike 22:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability for this article is not presumed from internet 'buzz' on the topic. Instead, as is appropriate when there is no presumption of notability, consensus on notability for this article is established by consideration of the content of the article.YSWT (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems like there is some confusion about sources and reliability of sources for information (clearly not an issue here-- the information presented is fully documented by appropriate sources, just like the MS Viewer) and reliable sources for establishing notability. At his point, the issue seems to be about 'Notability'. Ie., Keep the article stand alone as an article, or should it be merged into another article. Notably, no one has suggested any other more appropriate article.

• Something important here ---> Should Wikipedia be a reflection of pop culture, or a serious information source ? I find it very telling that no one has suggested information that might be added, or that would impact on the 'notability' issue. What if the software is unique or revolutionary in some way. What if it reflects important historical developments in the evolution of software ? Etc.

• The wiki guidelines are helpful with this issue "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject."

• Almost every anti-'Keep' comment falls to some kind of lower level 'guardianship' of pop culture current for the wiki. Pop culture is 'presumed' to be notable, that doesn't mean that subjects not part of pop culture are not notable. It means that when subjects are not part of pop culture (not a bunch of pages when googled, etc.) the subject NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. Everyone in the anti-Keep line here seems to have totally skipped that. There has been *no* discussion abour tthe specific content and subject of the article. Instead of the "contents and subject of the article" being the frame of the debate AS REQUIRED BY WIKI GUIDELINES, the debate has been solely that the subject is not pop.

The topic has not received huge coverage outside of narrow, specialized technical forums. Therefore there is no PRESUMPTION of notability. All of the nay-sayers have to this point missed the point. For their analysis, No significant coverage in reliable sources = not notable = delete. That analysis is not healthy for wiki, and is contrary to the express wiki guidelines.

Maybe it is easier doing a google and finding X # of results and declaring 'not notable'. But this is very bad for wikipedia. What is called for is "the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject".

• Determining if software is notable depends upon the purpose/use of the software. Ie. a minor 'player' in a larger field may not be notable, but a key 'player' in a smaller field sure is. If the program were a word processor, certainly agree, compared to word and open office may not be notable. But as a multi-media clipper and outliner, seems that based on wikipedia's current content, the software is the industry leader. Ie. this program is the 'MS Word' of technical outlining media clipping/viewing.

• Keep So, hoping to help frame constructive discussion/argument as to notability, note that the software is co-software, requiring another program to work in conjunction with it. (Nothing about that should make a program less notable, it is merely a technical detail of use. In fact, symbiotic programming has *NO ARTICLES* that I could find in wikipedia. This article in that respect is notable. (Although the subject should be fleshed out in the text).) The co-program is a technical outliner, a successor to the outliner Grandview, and for which no successor has yet come to market. With the co-program a platform for technical clipping and outlining of html/pdf/djvu/etc formats becomes possible. How many people does that have to be important to in order to be notable ? How much technical innovation is necessary for notability ? KEEPING IN MIND THAT NOTABILITY DOES NOT MEAN POPULARITY. Would be interesting or useful to hear perspectives on that etc. Hearing that the software doesn't have buzz so not right for wikipedia, is sort of disappointing. Edited on 3/3 changing from just general comment to adding voice to keep article after re-reading article as modified in current state. 84.109.107.68 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — 84.109.107.68 (talk • contribs) has made prior edits to EccoPro, Alan Lakein, and GoBinder topics. Edit2: when updated my comment to 'Keep' it was promptly deleted by FreeRangeFrog with a side comment about me correcting the incorrect tag he (?) added "few or no other edits" with the preceding text. I've just read the link and it is clear that both adding the tag and the fairly rude way myself and other 'non-professional' posters have been treated is a violation of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It was only by chance that I came back to the page and saw my voice for keeping the article was vandalized and reverted to my original general comment-- actively concealing what I actually had contributed . I took my time to contribute and FreeRangeFrog just deleted it. I find that extremely rude. If I removed some kind of tag that you feel is so important, you could have just added the tag back in. [reply]

• • I was under the mistaken (?) impression that FreeRangeFrog (who if I understand correctly posted this article for deletion) was an editor. After looking at his page it seems that is not true, and also that he uses various aliases (?). I'm no wiki expert to this could be all wrong-- please correct me if it is. If you're not an editor FreeRangeFrog you've got some serious issues, and a lot of nerve deleting my contribution to this discussion because I correct the incorrect tag you posted. (If you are an editor, it seems very clear you could have just re-inserted the tag and explained the issue politely.) The article you're trying to delete is 100% legitimate, just like my comment was. I also realized from looking at your post that it was you who previously tried unsuccessfully to delete the Alan Lakein wiki page, and that I also commented in favor of keeping. TO ANY ACTUAL EDITOR WHO REVIEWS THIS: Please keep this article. 84.109.107.68 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Hello. I am not an editor or contributor to wikipedia. I am just someone who enjoys it and uses it a lot. If my voice has any weight here, I've decided to speak up. I am attorney in Dallas and was looking for information on legal outliners and ended up on the magicecco page. Out of curiousity I ended up here. I am not a wiki expert, just a user. I don't use wikipedia to summarize what I can find at google. I use wikipedia as a reference site. I want wikipedia to have as many details about as many refined subjects as possible. Removing information because you can't find it on google sounds insane to me. The article wasn't particularly exiciting but it didn't seem like an advertisement. It explained what the program is and gave specific even helpful information. The article subject is 'noteworthy: worthy of notice' but not 'celebrated: widely known and esteemed'. I'd rather find on Wikipedia more of the the former and less of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.91.140 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — 70.251.91.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Disregard apparent single-purpose accounts and unregistered users.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment so you're telling everyone that comes here via actually using wikipedia to keep their thoughts to themselves ?? Maybe i'm just not in the culture, but that seems sort of rude, and makes the perspectives in the discussion potentially unbalanced. If there were just 'votes' (without any reasoning or discussion) posted from non-users ok disregard. But if someone takes the time to express their thoughts why disregard what they have to say just because they're an actual, as opposed to registered user ? And likely you feel your 'vote' (without any reasoning or discussion) should be 'counted' because you're a registered user.YSWT (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I searched for references to the product. And once you take away message board postings and wikipedia clones, you're left with this: nothing at all. I didn't think that it was possible to have an app where no bloggers have ever written about it. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @DoriSmith and others. Your argument is 'no external buzz on this so delete'. That is *not* the wikipedia guideline. The issue isn't buzz, whether bloggers write about it (although buzz leads to a PRESUMPTION of notability) the issue is CONTENT. The subject is OUTLINING/CLIPPING software. Is this program NOTABLE in that field ?

Other WIKIPEDIA entries for that field include Acta (software) include DEVONthink, Grandview (software), Leo (text editor), MORE (application), My Yellow Notepad, and MyInfo. EccoMV is significant and notable in that unlike all of those other software programs (existing wikipedia articles-- please look to see what makes up the 'outliner' field, EccoMV is a technical outliner, not a treeview control. There is no buzz on My Yellow Notepad. There are no blogs on it. But it is in wikipedia AND SHOULD BE. If you remove the references to the outliners listed here wikipedia would essentially have none left. YSWT (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my argument at all (nice straw man, though). My argument was that there are no reliable sources. Not a single one. And that while researching that, I was surprised to find that—on an AFD with this much discussion—there weren't even any unreliable sources. There is nothing. Therefore:

1. That means it's non-notable, and so, easily grounds for deletion.

• Not finding an article in a google search does not establish non-notabilty, at least according to wikipedia guidelines. There are 30,000+ results for "MagicView Software", you could not have in this time period reviewed each one to determine.YSWT (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. If there are no reliable sources, then there is nothing to base any article content on. For those of you saying, "but what about the content?"—why? If there are no sources, there should be no content. Nothing in the is article is from a reliable verifiable source. And that, in itself, is grounds for deletion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems early to come to that conclusion. Also, a search of google is not the way to determine the question, that is my point.

Dori, one of us is *very* very confused about what 'reliable sources' means and relates to. Let's see if we can figure it out. If you read the link you included you'll see "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That means the CONTENT of an article should rely on reliable published sources of information.

There are 10 cited sources in the article. For example, "http://www.uri.edu/library/staff_pages/kinnie/lib120/info_org.html" is cited as the source of the statement "...to retrieve the information you need, it's really important to know how the information is organized. Organization provides access to information or a collection." Are you asserting that in your opinion www.uri.edu is somehow not a source or a 'reliable source' ?

Or, more likely, perhaps you're confused as to the link you included. Perhaps you're thinking that link refers to internet pages that have discussed the same topic as discussed in the article ? Hopefully as explain pretty clearly in this discussion, a lot of internet 'buzz' about a topic creates a "presumption" that an article is notable. What does that mean ? The reverse is NOT true. Lack of buzz does not raise a presumption that the subject is not notable. Moreover, presumptions are only a starting point, not an ending point.

You, and a few others have gotten into your head that wikipedia is an abstract of the web-- a listing only of subjects that have already been raised in webpages indexed by google. Technically if you actually search for "MagicView software" without limiting the results, you'll find that magicview has been discussed in specialized technical forums. So you're wanting wikipedia not only to be just an abstract of webpages on the net, but only of some limited subset of those pages. Ok.

Dori, where do you find support for your position that if a subject does have sufficient buzz on the 'approved list' of google search result pages, that WHATEVER the content is, wikipedia is the wrong place for it. Please, citing to the specific language you're relying on for that position would be very helpful.

And just to be clear we're understanding eachother, your position to 'delete' isn't based on the content of the article, its based exclusively on your understanding that a subject not mentioned on the web except in technical discussion forms or lists is for that reason automatically prohibited from being the subject of a wikipedia article.

if you'll look at Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions you might see that "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet."

the, if you'll look at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_for.3F you'll see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept".

while you're looking you might see that "Notability: Wikipedia guidelines on minimal standards of importance exist for *some* types of topics, including biographies of living people, articles about music or musicians, companies and corporations, fictional topics, and articles about web-specific content. " This article is about OUTLINING SOFTWARE. it is not about a living person, music, companies, fictional topics or web-specific content.

finally, aside from the huge issue about thinking that 'no web references = no wikipedia article' being unhealthy for wikipedia, your search methodology isn't correct for the topic. Thousands of people haven't blogged eccoMV, but the program and/or its precusor and/or references to the software company in reference to the software *do* appear on the web. Using Yahoo, we find references spanning several YEARS on an independent website http://tpemurphy.com/links/?m=200805 ; an expert's webpage on PIMs makes several mentions at http://fredshack.com/docs/pim.html ; Comes up in a blog on note taking at http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2004/08/15/taking-notes/ ; is listed as a PIM by CNET at http://www.cnet.com/topic-software/personal-information-manager.html?s=20&l=20 ; references at the official http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/ forum ; shows up as concept mapping and outliner links from 2007 at http://www.netvouz.com/url/27571960d6ca308cb1dd3c5a5c7b786d ; etc. Again "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept". YSWT (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

errr, the independient website is a list of links in a blog, the PIM's expert page is about Ecco and not about the Magic View plugin, the netvouz page is just the online bookmarks uploaded by someone to a del.icio.us-type website, the cnet link is a list of products avilable for download. All those links fail the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, specially blogs and any unpublished stuff (I mean not published in magazines or newspapers).

You need to find stuff like press reports, in Wired (magazine) for example, statements by persons that are famous in programming, books, reviews (and I mean real reviews dealing with the software, not one link on a list of links, and not a passing mention when listing examples of a type of software), etc. That's the stuff that you can use to demonstrate notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric. Fantastic, let's discuss your input. [small factual error in your comment the PIM's expert page, it does include direct reference to the subject ('eccomagic' software is proto-version of software in article).] The key issue is *where specifically* would YOU expect to find a review of the software for this technical area, technical outlining. The only technical outliner still being used today is ecco_pro, and reviews/discussions take place not in 'popular' press, but in the ecco_pro user group, around in various incarnations for about a decade and a half. That is where the program has been reviewed, discussed, etc. Also on the eccomagic forums, but clearly that is not an 'independent' reference. The program subject of this article (and another, 'the extension') is extremely notable and within that specialized community.

If someone is seeking knowledge about technical outlining, or seeking reference or understanding about the subject, the subject of this article is notable and important to them. You likely don't use djvu documents. If you did, or if you wanted to find out about manipulation of djvu documents (how to manipulate them in an outline) this subject would be important to you also. But programs that provide djvu functionality are not generally covered in the popular press, not even the popular tech press.

I believe I've demonstrated that where'd you expect to find reference to *this subject* there is. If you have argument or suggestion as to where you'd expect to find reference to *this subject* (and not subjects GENERALLY), that is important. Again, if *this subject* would be expected to be covered in source X, and it isn't, that *would be* evidence on notability. Since I could find no coverage in 'Wired' for technical software similarly specialized as this (ie. without mass marked appeal or impact) would not expect Wired to write about this software either. Ie. Wired explains "Your search - "outlining software" - did not match any documents". It has no match for EccoPro, either. (although Ecco the dolphin yes). So since Wired does not deal with this subject generally, lack of specific reference in Wired about the subject of this article is not evidence as to notability.YSWT (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, if there is no coverture outside the Eccopro community, then it's failing the WP:N guideline requirements for having its own article, and should be simply deleted or redirected to Ecco Pro, as something only notable inside that subject.

Also, Ecco Pro does get a passing mention in Wired: "(...) tools to organize information-overloaded professional and personal lives, (...) a crowded field, with competitors including Microsoft Outlook, Backpack, Entourage, Zoot and Ecco Pro, another discontinued piece of software that still has a loyal following." [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that fact certain subjects are discussed with a certain community mean all those subjects belong in the same encyclopedic article ? There are a very finite set of complex math discussion forums, does that mean all math related subjects belong in the same article ? There is a special rule establishing FOR THAT COMMUNITY what the credible reference sources are. My vote is to allow discreet subjects to have discreet articles, even if the subject is talked about primarily only within a distict community. Ie. the same community can have discussions on more than a single subject.

if you're call is that all subjects discussed in any discreet community should be limited to a single article, I don't agree with that, but the position is relevant. (1) Is that what you're saying ? (2) Is there any way to get others to discuss that to develop a consensus on it ?

If relevant, for SOFTWARE (not necessarily other topics) my suggestion (and hopefully consensus can be found one way or the other) is that one program should not be the subject of another's article. One primary reason for that is to avoid using the wiki as an advertising forum. If one program is relevant to another, my suggestion is that a link to a second article is appropriate so that those who want to know more about the second program *can* access that reference, but are not forced to (by having the two subjects merged into one.)

Further rational for my suggestion on that is that the information in this article, such that magicview supports "pdf, dot, rtf, wri, txt, htm, html, mht, mhtml, xml, jpeg, png, gif, bmp, and hta" formats, etc., might be of interest to someone researching the magicview software, but would not seem to be generally of interest to someone researching the eccopro topic. That's just my view, and certainly interested to hear your view on it, and maybe others will contribute to arrive at some consensus. YSWT (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just making a general comment on software that only gets reported on a small community. Of course, if it was to be merged and redirected (which probably won't, since it will probably just be deleted) then it would be reduced to a mention like: "List of plugins: (...) MagicView: Allows to do X and Y." If it gets deleted, then it will just be deleted from the articles as a non-notable plugin, since wikipedia is not a directory of stuff, so it's not going to list every non-notable plugin for a certain product, and much less list it in general lists of software as if it was a separate product, like Comparison of notetaking software (a list which, by the way, needs a good shake-up to remove accumulated cruft).

As it has been suggested, as "one of the world's top authorities on technical outlining and ecco" you should write an article on it and get it published somewhere that wikipedia accepts as a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An author's citing their own work as an external reference to my own view is not objective. non-notable plugins for a product are, non-notable. The question is, is the subject of *this* article a 'non-notable plugin'. If we examine that relevant sources-- relevant for *this* software, there is clear reference. Moreover, if we consider the actual content of the article the notability is documented with external reference. Ie, the article addresses and documents in what way specifically the add on is notable. (It's not a plug-in, it's actually a symbiont program.). For example, the program allows the technical outlining of djvu, pdf and sim. formats. You personally might not find that notable, the the external references establish the notability of this subject. Moreover, in the *relevant community* on the references used by that community (including technical wikis and forums) the add on is considered notable and significant. In other delete discussions for SOFTWARE, *exactly* this criteria was offered for testing notability of SOFTWARE.YSWT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment before I give up-- because it seems there is no DISCUSSION or debate going on here about the article content. 'Voting' to delete an article because the name of the subject software does not have google hits outside of technical forums and wikis misses the point. To quote from [2] "Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject. It is not helpful to declare a subject non-notable, an editor should express their opinion as to why the article is non-notable, referencing both the article contents and any guidance offered on Wikipedia."

• Interestingly, **ALL** comments to this point which discussed the actual contents and subject of the article have been either neutral or on the side of keeping the article. It sure would be fair if someone wanted to discuss the content and explain some reason or rational why the content is not notable, etc. Then there could be a discussion or 'argument' about the content. But somehow the 'delete' voices seem to be stuck on the external references to subject part of the analysis. While significant external discussion (buzz) on a topic creates a presumption of notability, the converse is NOT true. lack of external buzz does not establish that an article is not notable or should be deleted. AGAIN, lack of external buzz does not establish that an article is not notable. To examine that issue we need to examine the CONTENT of the article. AGAIN "the subject of the article should frame the debate". YSWT (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm sorry, but there is something ridiculous here. Instead of being a discussion of the article's contents, its like "i've searched google, not many results DELETE// I've found hits only in forums and wikis DELETE// I've found no hits in blogs, DELETE". (1) did the additional bean counters think the first poster was lying when they said they didn't find many google hits ? If 3,000 people don't find many google hits, is that more credible than if 1 person doesn't find google hits ? (I guess if someone lived where searches were edited, like in china, that might be relevant...) And what, deletion of articles becomes a discussion of google search keywords ? By what methodology did someone determine that the current product name should be search in conjunction with "Ecco Pro" ?? because just "MagicView" returns over a quarter million google hits ?? If we take just ( "EccoMV" or "MagicView" or "EccoMagic" ) and ("Ecco" or "EccoPro" or "Ecco Pro") google gives over *a thousand* results. "MagicView" and "Software" gives about 30,000. But search "ecco pro add-ons" and get NO results. So, obviously, by this logic ecco pro add-ons are not notable. The 'proto' precursor to MagicView was called "eccomagic". Google eccomagic software and find HUNDREDS of results. Heck, its' even [3] 'Officially Trusted'. The proto-precursor is notable but the actual developed software not ???? YSWT (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Because, sometimes, someone will make their own search and find stuff that the other people missed. For example, search for my name here to see how I found several newspapers sources where others hadn't. When searching google, it's easy to miss stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--I'll not try to answer every single thing you mentioned in detail; had we but world enough, and time... but the very last thing is interesting. Eccomagic is notable? Well, they don't have an article on WP, and the 'authority' you cite for its being "Officially Trusted" is an online vendor! Reminder: the guy on the TV commercial with the white coat is not really a doctor. You still need to find sources that pass WP:RS. I actually looked, and found none. (Hint: you should try Google News instead of Google.)Drmies (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, "Microsoft Word Viewer" in Google News has Zero (0) results. but that is NOT the point. In your world 'sources' are websites that talk about the same topic discussed in an article. In my world 'sources' are the references given for information contained in the article. Your criteria is 'Does another credible website discuss the same subject as this article'. If not, delete. This is how you understand the Wikipedia purpose and deletion criteria. How does this wikipedia guidance language fit in your world view "Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject. It is not helpful to declare a subject non-notable, an editor should express their opinion as to why the article is non-notable, referencing both the article contents and any guidance offered on Wikipedia." To me that is very clearly saying it matters WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT not if others on the net have discussed the same subject. YES, if lots of others have discussed the same subject *that* raises a PRESUMPTION that the subject is noteworthy. but, seems you are confusing the test for a presumption of noteworthiness with an analysis/discussion of noteworthiness.

• • • (continued) nothing you've mentioned even remotely touches on the subject mater of the article and why or why not it might be notable, or what might make it so. Notability is a relative concept. EccoMV is not notable among great poetry, or among political satire. But what about among web clippers/outliners/djvu viewing programs. Is eccoMV a 'notable' djvu viewing program. (maybe it is or its not, but THAT is what we should be discussing). Once we've determined there is no PRESUMPTION of notability we have to examine the actual article and subject. You seem to not realize that, and want to end your analysis with the presumption of notability. Ie. for your view, if there is no PRESUMPTION of notability there is no notability. PRESUMPTION of notability is established by external references ('buzz'). Notability is established by the actual content. Where there is not a presumption of notability (ie., where there is NOT internet buzz on the topic), To quote, " the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate ".

(notice how you frame the issue "Eccomagic is notable?" based on 'external' web references. but that is NOT the test. "Eccomagic is PRESUMED notable?" *should* have been what you wrote (since you were talking about external web sites discussing the same topic). Seems you've confused the PRESUMPTION of notable based on internet buzz with the actual question of being notable. (and seems its not just you.). Again, internet buzz does not establish notability. It can establish a *presumption* of notability to avoid having to deal with the actual content. In your view, if the presumption of notability can't be established, you don't want to deal with the content. For you, the presumption of notability has replaced actual notability. The 'shortcut' to testing the actual content has replaced actual testing of the content. Discussion about looking for 'external' buzz has replaced discussion about the article's actual content. Actually, that's pretty interesting.YSWT (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hate to burst your bubble, but "Microsoft Word Viewer" has 105 entries on Google News. Second, adios. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My friend you're not exactly accurate and you're exactly missing the point. (1) you've linked to the news archives, not the news. different searches, different results-- but so what. so what if it is zero or 1000,0000,0000. (2) You're just not willing to face the actual issue. You think the policy is 'if there are not external websites of repute that mention the topic, delete it'. THAT IS NOT THE WIKIPEDIA POLICY. The policy is more SUBTLE than that. If there ARE sufficient external website links to a topic then the topic is PRESUMED notable. So, as the first step OF A TWO STEP PROCESS searching on google like you (and every other 'delete' voter) can provide a PRESUMPTION of notability. But if not-- if there are not external 'buzz' on a topic there is a further step, EXAMINATION OF THE ACTUAL ARTICLE CONTENT. You seem to want to act as if this second step doesn't exist. A simpler world without the further step is more relaxed ? Less to deal with ? Too abstract ? More 'secure' just to be able to examine google results and talk about those. You've addressed google results as THE REASON TO DELETE THE ARTICLE. You're entire discussion is based on google search results. You've just ignore the articles content. In your analysis of keeping or deleting an article, what the article says, it's content is irrelevant to you. You see the question as an analysis of google results. To quote from above, that's crazy. Large credible google results is a substitute for finding notable content (it provides a presumption of notability). Maybe it is confusing for you that the opposite is not true. Lack of credible google results does not provide any presumption that the subject is not notable. YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO READ THE ARTICLE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN. I know that is a bummer.

• • Others have actually done that-- actually read and thought about the content and given an opinion about it. There is a unamious consensus amoung *EVERYONE* who has done that that the article should be kept. If you read the article and have suggestions, or even if you find that the content BASED ON THE CONTENT is not notable, we can discuss that even have an 'argument' about it. You can present your views about WHY the content is not notable, and I (or others) can respond. But you haven't done that. You have responded to me but *only* about google search results. You didn't even understand my references to the web. They are NOT to show that this software has internet buzz.

• • Maybe take a moment to consider what an Encyclopedia is, eg." a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." , "A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics", "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically." you'll notice this is different from an abstract. Turning Wikipedia into an abstract of topics discussed elsewhere on the internet is a sad thing to do. Wikipedia should be a true ENCYCOPEDIA, a storehouse and beacon of knowledge. Ask if the article offers meaningful information/knowledge that someone would want to know-- ie, ask "is the *content* notable". An article on what you ate today may be fully supported by external documentation-- but has not notable value for others. This is the issue. Does not seem like you're interested in addressing that. (or, are you so 'connected' in your life to the internet that you recognize the internet as *being* the world ? Something not on the net is not in the world ?. Or, was this topic just misplaced. Ie., instead of being in 'delete or not software topic' it was misplaced in the 'delete or not article about the web' category ?. Again, nothing here is personal. You obviously are find google results interesting and something you want to talk about. Your argument for deletion is 'insufficient google results'. You could even argue that those in consensus to keep the article are reaching that conclusion based on the *CONTENT* of the article being notable, *not* on the google results. From your perspective, those who reached consensus to keep the article BASED ON ITS CONTENT don't understand wikipedia's mission nor guidelines, that it's not about content being notable, it's all about the subject of the article have sufficient 'buzz' to be 'worthy' to be 'allowed' in wikipedia. To your view Worthiness is determined conclusively by google results and internet buzz. For you, notability of the actual article content is beyond your evaluation. YSWT (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - adverspamtisement, two SPA IP's and an editor dedicated to promoting this software across several articles are the only editors in favor of keeping this article. I also suggest running check-user against the IPs and YSWT and blocking YSWT if sock abuse is confirmed. Rklawton (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Other than rude accusation and factually erroneous claims, you've stated nothing about the article that makes it advertisement. Since the language about the program *and* format was lifted directly from MS Viewer page, (similar software idea), am very curious as to what specifically you find is advertising. What language is biased or non-objective, for example. Further, only one of the comments was by a SPA and they explained explicitly who they were, where they were, and why they were posting. There comment was reasoned, and gave specific basis for their opinion and input. Exactly what your comment lacks.

• Delete One of many articles about nonnotable software. Also is clearly written as an advertisement so there's nothing good we'd be getting rid of. Themfromspace (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply At least you acknowledge this software is as notable as many articles on WP. But you've contributed nothing in explaining how the subject is nonnotable. Neither have you provided any specifics or basis for your 'opinion' that the article is written as an advertisement. Since the article was written exactly (same structure, language, etc., ) as the Microsoft Word Viewer WP page, (additional materials added after objection as to notablity was made), you've provided zero basis for your comment.

• 'Delete Plugins don't inherit the notability of the software they are designed for (otherwise, we would have zounds of articles on small plugins!). This plugin doesn't appear to have any notability of its one that warrants an article, and the article does not mention any coverage by third-party independient sources. P.D.:There are some sources, but they are all to support secondary points unrelated to the software, like "Organization provides access to information or a collection". Doh. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You've made a valid point that Plugins don't inherit the notability of the software they are designed for, and agree with you. However, nothing about the notability of this software was based on the notability of the software it integrates with. You've also brought an intelligent line to the discussion-- examining the topic (as opposed to trying to count google results). On second look might you agree that the cited points are not so unrelated to the article's subject-- they explain the notability of the software. It is was the first, and is currently the only technical outliner rtf/html/pdf/djvu clipper/viewer. You may not find that interesting personally, but the article explains what the software does and why. (based wholly on outside sources). That organization provides access to information is not so obvious. The comparison between outline structure to organize information with keyword search reliance is explained and cited by reference. That is important to the topic because the software's significance/notablity is being a technical outliner for accessing information. If it were one of many technical outliners allowing access to information (html/djvu/pdf, etc) then agree whole heartedly that it would not be notable. But as referenced in the article it is the *only* program that is a technical outliner and data archive. Helpful ? YSWT (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge Sorry, but I do not see any type of notability in this software. I am certain it works very well but I couldn't really find press for it. I am so sorry! Perhaps it can be merged into another article? Basket of Puppies 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No need to be sorry. Your's is the first legitimate delete comment, at least as I see it. You correctly understand that notability is not to get rid of content, but rather to define what is placed as independent article and what better belongs in a broader topic. What kind of 'press' specifically are you looking for to support notability. Ie. in your view of wikipedia, what criteria would you require for a program to be listed in its own article ? If anyone can articulate any sort of criteria, we can then have a discussion about whether the article meets that criteria or not. Repeated "Delete. Not Notable" comments aren't especially helpful, nor are they a substitute for consensus. Again, from Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." See my comments and url references to DoriSmith, above. YSWT (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability presented via reliable independent sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Casn't seem to find any evidence of notability via reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation there is a problem with the discussion process for deleting this article. Maybe because the article was mis-categorized on the deletion page. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON OUTLINING SOFTWARE. Notability of an outlining software package is not going to be found in people magazine. Lack of notability at reliable sources is only relevant where there are reliable sources where the software would be notable. The primary source for information about this topic is at the offcial user group yahoo forum. At that forum the software is notable. But that forum is discounted here as 'just a yahoo forum'. OK. Cnet publishes a list of the few outlining softwares available. reference from that list is discounted as a 'sellers list'. Fine. A couple of individuals host blogs or information pages about outliners. The subject is referenced there. But those are disregarded as being individual's private web pages. Ok, but that is where and how this subject is covered on the web. It was literally pointed out here that the subject did not appear in Google News. Neither do most (if any) of the articles on Math. If there are current articles on the web where all notable software of this type appears, and this software is missing-- that's a good point. But that requires web locations where you would expect to find references, and have those references lacking.

• failure to find evidence of notability via reliable sources is only relevant when you've found reliable sources on this subject and reference to this topic is missing. Take the mathamatics Notability guidelines for example. Two reliable sources where notable subjects are *expected* to be found are listed. Ie. there is consensus that sources exist, and what they are. Therefore, lack of reference *on those sources* is evidence of non-notability. But that only applies where such sources for THE TOPIC UNDER REVIEW exist on the web. As explained in the Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions article, "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet."

What is missing here from those seeking to delete is any discussion or consensus on where you would expect to find sources on the subject via the internet but don't. A couple of individuals have blogs/webpages dedicated the narrow field of outlining. The subject is referenced on those pages. The subject has a website. The subject is referenced extensively in forms *dedicated to the narrow field* relevant to the subject. Those are all places where you'd expect to be reference, and there is. The subject is not a part of pop culture. Maybe someday it will be. Being a part of pop culture is not, and should not be the guideline for inclusion of articles. YSWT (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting your time here - you can only save the article by adding (according to wikipedia guidelines) reliable sources, no matter how long your replies are here, if they aren't in the article, it will be deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that YSWT is personally involved with the software and its promotion and really shouldn't be editing the article in the first place. Rklawton (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the world's top authorities on technical outlining and ecco, would seem my input on notability within that area would be especially meaningful. If not obvious, in a field so specialized, am likely to be involved in some way with most new technical outlining software or add-ons. Notably, I've not cited to my own personal reviews or editorials about the subject , nor used any alias, and most importantly was *extremely* careful to avoid *any* bias or non-objectivity by taking --> word for word <--- the text for the article from another article on a similar product (MS Viewer). (After posted for deletion, added section explaining the software's significance) Non-objectivity of the article;s content is a legitimate issue, and if there is *ANYTHING* in the article text that you feel might not be objective, helpful to point out so can be improved. Beyond that, my own personal input has been offered without reference to my personal expertise, going so far as to NOT use my position as one of the the world's top experts on the subject in defense of notabilty. YSWT (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:N. YSWT - haranguing contributors to the Afd with repeats of the same comments is not helping your cause. ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • YSWT, this is seriously bad manners. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Instead of discussion on the issues multiple 'Clearly fails' "votes" to delete, and rude, personal attack. Do not want to get into personality based discussion. "Sneak Vandalism" is documented in the wikipedia vandalism section. It involves deleting a substantive contribution (which is vandalism) and labeling the reversion as vandalism removal. [4] is exactly what you FreeRangeFrog did. You attempted to remove the web references I listed, and the discussion, and did so under the guise of removing vandalism. I was the second contributor you did that too, using the same technique to revert someone's 'Keep' to a 'comment'. After I called you on it, suddenly the discussion is flooded with 'Delete' "votes" that don't present any rational basis, but instead make personal attacks. Am not interested in going there with you, or friends.YSWT (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Someone posted a note on the administrator's notice board. As a result, many administrators - such as myself - read this note. A few of us took interest in following up. We did so - and 100% of us (some of the most experienced Wikipedia editors with 10s of thousands of edits and years of experience each) all agree that your article should be deleted. You should learn from this. Rklawton (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is in line with wikipedia guidelines ? A reason to delete an article is because " 'some of the most experienced Wikipeida editors' all agree that your article should be deleted ". What is that ? A new, editor's progative delete ?

Look, if it so clear that the article should be deleted, that why don't you just post the rational and basis for that. (1) What is the criterion for SOFTWARE that you or others feel should be applied. There is not a formal guideline yet on wikipedia, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE THE GUIDE. (2) If this article fails to meet that guideline state your reason or rational for it. That really isn't too difficult to do. "Because its not notable" isn't a legit rational. Neither is "Because we all think so". Further, your previous comments such as "adverspamtisement" were made without any support or rational. Not to mention your previous not so polite statements directed to me personally.

At least you admit that you've been involved in discussing the article with others 'off board'. The sudden addition of multiple 'deletes' without rational behind them was awful suspicious. It sure did seem like someone had asked for support in "reviewing" the article. You've made *repeated* comments here, none to substantive points, and *all* containing personally directed comment. Either (according to you) personally am using multiple IPs to post from, or should be ignored because am an expert in this topic, or should learn something personally. It is not about personalities, its just an article. It has content. If the content is appropriate or not appropriate for an article there are rational reasons that can be discussed. YSWT (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor has posted their rationale. It boils down to "not notable." I simply reported the consensus and suggested you take it under advisement. And yes, consensus is the standard reason for an article to be deleted via AfD. Next, I have neither participated in or do I know of any off board discussions. Yes, your article is going to be deleted. It could be deleted now under WP:SNOW. Your edits adding this software to other articles will also be reviewed and possibly removed. Keep in mind that you have been requested to refrain from editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest. This limits you to contributing your suggestions to talk pages. If other editors see merit in your ideas, then they can choose to follow your suggestions. Or not. Lastly, you should be aware that if you attempt to disrupt any of these processes, you may find yourself blocked from editing any part of Wikipedia. So far, your efforts in this matter have not been very encouraging, but if you really are interested in editing an encyclopedia rather than simply promoting your product, I urge you to find a mentor and follow his/her recommendations. It's your call. Rklawton (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal, and even threatening response from you. "Your edits adding this software to other articles will also be reviewed and possibly removed." Isn't that exactly the opposite of deletion of this article. Isn't the whole point to delete when the subject should be merged. Notability is NOT an issue of appropriate content. You do, or should know that. If references to the article's topic are not appropriate in other articles that argues strongly that the subject should be kept on its own. As for "This limits you to contributing your suggestions to talk pages." if I am not supposed to comment or respond here, please just direct me to where the wiki guides me on that and certainly will follow. "attempt to disrupt any of these processes" what in the world are you talking about. "but if you really are interested in editing an encyclopedia rather than simply promoting" maybe you should back down for a second, get out of personality conflict mode, and look calmly and objectively at the subject matter. I have been involved for many years (am an expert in that field) in helping share knowledge about technical outliners. I support this program, but I don't have much ego interest in the article. My view, as an expert in the field is that information about the software is notable, even important to those seeking it. If there is language reflecting any bias, or non-objectivity that is import to fix in any article. The question here is not that. The question here is notability. A polite discussion of rational based on the content of the article is welcome. "Everyone wrote 'Delete - Not notable' so we have consensus" is not appropriate. It isn't even consensus as intended for the wiki. Wikipedia has a life of its own. Am very curious to see where that is today. (My personal suggest to you, take a breath, go jump out of plane, and then come back and share with RATIONAL DISCUSSION, specifically where you would expect to find external references for this specific subject.) YSWT (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For further guidance, see WP:COI - but I posted that on your talk page hours ago. If you are an expert in the field, then go publish an article about this product in the appropriate reliable source. If no reliable sources are interested in your article, then we certainly aren't, either. You say consensus doesn't matter, but I say - wait and watch what happens, and then you will see what matters. I think you'll find it most instructive. Rklawton (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) published on the topic, but to my view reliance on my own work product to support an article I also authored on wikipedia would not be objective. (2) a preliminary issue is to come to some consensus as to what is a reliable sources relevant to *this field of interest*, please see discussion above. (or at least consensus on critera *for this particular subject* for this discussion). (3) Consensus is *all* that matters, but consensus is *not* (or **Should** not be) counting of up and down thumbs. Consensus should be the result of RATIONAL ARGUMENT, ie., not just ("Not Notable"), but a reasoning related to the specific content. Again, if this topic would be expected to be reported in google news and wasn't "not in google news" is a great basis for showing non-notable. BUT ONLY if the topic would be expected to be referenced there.

Different subjects have *different* criteria for notablity. Do you think that is a good idea ? Have you thought about what criteria best serves wikipedia in relationship to software ? I've made above 'arguments' as to my view. After thought on the issue, do you have a view to contribute ? Are you aware of the efforts to INCREASE the coverage for software on the wiki ? YSWT (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view? Your extension software to an out-dated freeware program isn't notable. That's my view, and no, I don't care to argue the matter with someone who has a personal interest in promoting it. Yeah, we'd like to have better software coverage, but that doesn't mean we need to help people hype their add-on, commercial products. If your product was all that hot, other people would have taken interest in it. But no, it's just you, your product, and your drum. And all us mean old Wikipedia curmudgeons aren't going to let you use Wikipedia as your personal advertising medium. Go pay for advertising in the various relevant periodicals like normal software developers, and if you've got a worthy product, an industry journalist will take note (usually with the encouragement of a sales manager who wants to keep your advertising dollars flowing in) and actually write about it. If that happens often enough, someone (else) will take notice and author an article about how great your program is. Until that day happens, your article doesn't have a snowball's chance. Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply "Your extension software to an out-dated freeware program isn't notable. That's my view". (Certainly have help contribute to the design, but not 'my' extension). And its fair that to YOU the 'out-dated' program isn't notable. But for the thousands of users of that program it IS. To establish that notability (to *that* interest group) citation and reference provided. It establishes notability within that framework. It is not a worldwide subject, not of interest of google news or wired. If we look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions we see that "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet." And , if we look at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_for we see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept".

Advertising deals with content and not scope. Deletion is a scope issue-- does the subject deserve its own article. By keeping software to its own subject, you *prevent* advertising by preventing the insertion of one software in the article of another in order to 'tail wind'. How does it benefit a software company to have a segregated wikipedia article ?? No one rummages around wikipedia looking for articles on software. In your personal case as a photographer, the link you have on your business website to pages here on wikipedia may lend you credibility for your clients or shows off your work. More power to you. But the same does not apply to software. The purpose of the wiki is to provide information, including for research. What formats does the software read, what systems will it run on, who develops it, etc. The wiki tells us 'what is this thing'. You see it as an 'extension to an out-dated freeware program". Great. That is exactly the kind of INFORMATION wikipedia provides. If the facts are not accurate, or the wording is biased, etc., that as in any article would need to be made objective and cited to proper sources.

For some, (myself included) the idea than an 'old' software package can be 'modernized' by dis-assembly of the machine code is incredibly notable and interesting. This is demonstrated by references to places where the subjects of 'old software packages' are discussed-- and that is not on google news. A subject of interest and notable to a specialized community *is* notable pursuant to the wikipedia criteria. That a subject has low or even no google hits is *not* *in and of itself* a reason to exclude the subject-- unless a notable topic on this subject *would* appear on google, etc. YSWT (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual question was "what criteria best serves wikipedia in relationship to software". Eg, if the subject was 'accidents' perhaps your criteria would be 'news coverage in a regional media' , etc. when the subject is 'technical software' what is your criteria. certainly (to my pov) 'news coverage in a regional media' is *not* an indication of a technical software's notability. Key idea offered: Different subject types have different criteria to determine notability. If you haven't even defined your criteria, you have no rational basis for making a determination. Your may feel one way or another, and feelings are great. Lots of others may share your feelings. Maybe wikipedia is even governed by the feelings of the majority. It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be governed by rational decision making. Decisions based on consensus of criteria and whether those criteria have been reached. YSWT (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it seems quite clearly to me to be the work of pretty much one user, who seems intent to pretty much work on it by themselves. I do not feel notability has been met. It is clearly a conflict of interest as well, and, in my opinion, lacks enough outside research and contributions. In addition, it reads like an advertisement, despite the attempts to tone down POV. Vincent Valentine 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply "it seems quite clearly to me to be the work of pretty much one user" (????). "I do not feel notability has been met" In what way specifically ? "reads like an advertisement" which language, specifically ? YSWT (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...notability as demonstrated by reliable, verifiable (published) sources and without our own original research, interpretation, or synthesis. Notability - a standard which is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. A standard with which you clearly disagree. On this point, Wikipedia is inflexible. Numerous editors have reviewed this and offered their opinion - an opinion you seem incapable of accepting. When you were learning to walk, did you demand of gravity an explanation for why you fell, or did you eventually learn to accept that you simply can't do what you want by shear force of will or word count? Rklawton (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"notability as demonstrated by reliable, verifiable sources" we're totally in agreement here. This is clearly wikipedia's policy. But that is not a standard. If you look at the notability guideline pages you'll notice THERE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR DEMONSTRATING NOTABILITY FOR DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. The first step is to determine what is "reliable, verifiable sources" in the contect of technical SOFTWARE.

to quote from another editor's comments with which you are also aware "While I don't believe in that two wrongs would make a right, however in the software case there are hundreds, if not thousands of wiki entries for less notable software than this one (and personally, I think it's a good thing to have those pages, too). That isn't a question of right and wrong anymore, but a question of precedent and refraining from applying double standards, in order to remain consistent. There is no argument about that everyone would be happier if more sources would establish the notability of this software, however it would be a strawman to imply that there exists the expectation that wikipedia pages can only be created for exceptionally well known or widely used software. Furthermore, in the Perl community this software is most definitely considered notable, as evidenced by the various posts on Perl related news sites, blogs, community wikis and forums. I do not believe that the deletionist approach would remain consistent with the spirit of wikipedia policies" Ie., for software, that editor's criteria is to use what the relevant specialty community considers reliable, including blogs, community wikis and forums. If those sources are included the subject of *this* article clearly has external reference sources. Now, you don't have to agree with *that* criteria for software. But if not, what is the standard that *you* propose ?

TO quote from the guides "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the *only* consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating *specifically* to that content and subject." Again, "the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject." YSWT (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can clarify my earlier points: 11 out of the 17 edits in the history were by one user. That's quite a disproportional amount, and when you add that some of the 6 non-YSWT edits were for things like categorization, it gets even more staggering. Given that this is a clear conflict of interest, the percentage of potentially compromised edits is very alarming to me as a Wikipedia user. In addition, your rabid replies to anyone who challenges the page shows your deep attachment to both the product and the article. This attachment is unhealthy with regards to policy.

• The article was 2 hours old.

My replies are directed to substance. Basket of Puppies challenged the page and there was nothing rabid involved in my reply. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now several days old and nothing seems to have changed. Perhaps this is again due to the fact that you are the primary editor of the page. Even still, you have had several days to make significant improvements. The time issue is one of the reasons the AfD process is five days long--it gives all parties a chance to be heard and time for issues to be addressed, and hopefully remedied, so that an article need not be deleted. Yet these changes do not seem to be forthcoming. Although I will disregard your statements classifying everyone except yourself as "non-experts" (I am a former computer engineer and software technician) and the "deletion" community among other things (perhaps this might not quite be an actualization of the assume good faith policy? [to use your own words]), it seems pretty clear to me that the point of it only having been two hours old is at this point irrelevant. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedia community member, I am allowed to post on this debate, and my opinion is my opinion. The fact that some other articles might have less notability and yet still exist does not enter into this discussion. I would comment in the same way on them as here. This discussion is solely in regards to the article in question, and to be honest the paucity of outside sources (nearly half of the resources are connected to the ecco site itself) is undoubtedly problematic with regards to multiple policies, including notability, verifiability and even WP:COI (as you have a personal connection to these sites). I might be persuaded that the article was worth keeping if user YSWT agreed not to edit it anymore, since 65% of COI edits is unacceptable, but such an agreement seems unlikely. How would you feel if a criticism section was added? Not that I intend to write one, but the mere fact of the compromised nature of the article is troubling to me. I don't think anyone can honestly say that this article's neutrality hasn't been called into question.

• I share your concerns about COI, which is why (1) A template article was used to insure objectivity Microsoft Word Viewer and (2) no references to my own publications on the subject was included. Since that template had no external references, this article had none either. The exact words were used with the facts changed as appropriate. (Additional sections added after deletion, to clarify notability). In another context the double standard issue needs to be addressed because it erodes the credibility of the wiki. The article used as a template had all but one reference to the developer's website. Since every software topic article contains information such as program specs, etc., that is normal for the subject.

A template is a template. You have been free to be bold and add the external references yourself over the past few days, provided they do not violate community guidelines. In addition, I might suggest that having articles created by people who are involved with the item itself erodes the credibility of Wikipedia, thus the reasoning behind the conflict of interest policy. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have very little ego attachment, if any, in the article. I am happy to agree not to edit it, so long as it does not become a forum for the kinds of personal undertones running through the discussion on deletion. If a criticism section makes the article more helpful, and again, of course so long as the section is kept topical, if it makes the wiki stronger, that's great. Wikipedia should be an awesome and amazing thing. Working things out by mutual positive cooperative efforts as a community is supposed to be the karma of the wiki. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make this a reality, I would be pleased and have no objections. As of yet, I have not been wholly convinced--there is always hope though. Nevertheless, I think everyone can agree that you do have a strong attachment to the article, by the nature of the fact that a.) you created the article and b.) you were involved in the creation of the article's subject. Would you be open to the article being deleted now and then recreated at a future date (provided that it met notability guidelines at that point) by someone's own volition, thus eliminating the conflict of interest and also making the Wiki stronger by improving its credibility and reliability? It seems to be a sensible course of action. Since you have agreed not to edit the article due to your own, admitted, COI concerns, this would satisfy all parties. I admit we are not all--as you have keenly pointed out--experts and we are not all abreast of the latest papers that have come out, but many of us are knowledgeable and the creation of the article on the subject by a neutral party would only bolster the collective nature of Wikipedia and improve its credibility. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the first paragraph of the section "functional significance" feels as though the reader is being clubbed over the head with trivialities and banalities in order to showcase the usefulness of the product. It feels very non-neutral and hints of advertising. To sum up my feelings, this article has the potential to be a useful article, but among other things that would require user YSWT ceasing from engaging in a conflict of interest, and I think this discussion shows that that would be pretty much impossible. It is not surprising for a user to want to have an article about something they themselves have worked on, but in those situations it undoubtedly calls for intensified scrutiny. Vincent Valentine 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If an article can be edited for improvement, that is the beauty of a collaborative wiki. I would note that the wording is taken from direct quotations, each of which is cited. The information is from highly credible, neutral and objective sources such as the library science department of Brandeis University. Then again, the article was only 2 hours old when posted for deletion.

The link from which the quotations are taken (the Brandeis link) does not mention the subject of the article directly. Thus, it is again another one of the links that does not establish notability or reliability of the article, merely describing another topic. In addition, I believe the "two hours old" point has been addressed above. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that comments such as "I think this discussion shows that that would be pretty much impossible" might not quite be an actualization of the Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith policy ? If it makes the wiki better, of course I support ti, as I suspect would most other contributors. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will only quote the assume good faith page itself: "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith." I feel that deleting this article (for the concerns that have amply been laid out by many editors, myself included) at this time makes the Wiki better, and that is why I support it and that is why I suspect the majority of other editors here have also commented in favor of its deletion. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Formal apologies to Drmies who did not and was not involved in the 'sneak vandalism'. FreeRangeFrog, (who so graciously posted this subject for deletion) deserves all the credit for that, using the classic sneak vandalism technique (see Wikipedia:Vandalism) of removing the external reference links added here in support of the article under the notation of 'removing vandalism'. Drmies was *not* the person who did that, and very much deserves the formal apology he has requested. YSWT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Why, thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be be WP:SNOW at this stage, someone want to do the honours and shut this sucka down?--Cameron Scott (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is Cameron Scott's third summary demand to delete. Have not made any comment about the standards proposed in other software delete discussions (see above). By those standards the specialty forum references would be clearly supportive of inclusion. Won't discuss the criteria for determining reliability in software context, nor address the specific subject of the article. We all agree there needs to be 'reliable sources' the question is what that means in a software article context. Example of those 'voting' repeatedly to delete this article but don't want to discuss it rationally. Cameron just wants to "shut this sucka down". My own and other voices looking at the content and subject have consensus that in SOFTWARE articles sourcing should be proper as for software. Cameron etal offer no alternative criteria for this subject or software generally. "We know it when we smell it. This stinks because it smells." YSWT (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cameron, I believe that this has two more painful days to run before it can be closed. YSWT, with all due respect, I think you should be aware that volume is no substitute for content. onebravemonkey 09:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember we aren't a bureaucracy, in a situation like this, where the community is in agreement, we can close an AFD early. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, good point. onebravemonkey 09:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should let it run its course. The (now deleted) debate for the Threshold (online game) article was closed a day early and a ruckus was raised about it at DRV and the deletion was overturned. Themfromspace (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised by ruckus whatever the outcome, so keeping it for the full five days seems wisest. onebravemonkey 12:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is clearly not appropriate for deletion. The wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear:

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

• Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject^[1] for advice on where to look for sources.
• Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
• If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.^[2] Otherwise, if deleting:^[3]

• If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
• Use the {{prod}} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
• For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for five days.

This article was TWO HOURS into the process of being written when marked for deletion.

The cardinal rule of wikipedia Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith has been sorely lacking.

Gross violations of wikipedia rules and policy have occurred, with the silent support of the 'community' involved in supporting the article's deletion. The editor who posted the article for deletion going so far as to revert a 'Keep' position to a 'comment', and to remove external references offered in support asserting in his revision edit to be removing vandalism.

When others tried to comment in support of keeping the article it was made immediately clear that such comments were not invited and an atmosphere of hostility created. Notably, in looking at other deletion pages for guidance I found this practice common, one editor who had made a variety of edits on subjects spanning years was literally labeled as being a 'meatpuppet'.

I was personally threatened, if I 'obstructed the process of deletion' I might be banned from wikipedia, and that my other contributions would now be closely scrutinized, etc.

None of the 'deletion' community is an expert in the subject, have no idea what papers have been presented or what articles exist outside of google searches.

Encouragement of others to contribute to the article, time for that process to occur, etc., were all suppressed.

The article is not porn, it is factually accurate and properly referenced. If there are issues about the content, certainly helpful to improve them, etc., as with any article.

Instead, removing the 3 hour old article from the wiki has become to those involved an important cause. One editor, explaining in no uncertain terms that this article "will be deleted", and another, with support from others, going so far as to declare "someone want to do the honours and shut this sucka down?"

All in all, not what had expected from the wikipedia community. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, YSWT, we get it. You're a voice crying in the wilderness, the only one on Wikipedia who understands the Wikipedia guidelines, the prophet disdained in his own land. We don't understand what reliable sources are, but then, we shouldn't need to, since you are the world's leading (or were you number 2?) expert on this matter, so we should JUST TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. (Irritating, those all-caps.) Now, let this thing run its course; you've wasted enough electrons on this AfD. And if we get it wrong, and your article is deleted, console yourself with the thought that Wikipedia is not worthy anyway since it's run by a bunch of yahoos who don't know nuttin'. Don't forget to compare the above editors to Hitler, or to offer a conspiracy theory. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You've identified yourself as a top expert in the field, and complain that we, the "deletion community" are not experts in the subject and have no ideas what papers have been presented or exist outside of google. The solution is quite simple. Provide us with this information that we are missing. It's all about reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'us' against 'you' attitude is improper, the personal attack offensive. Development of a wiki article is a process, hopefully a collaborative one. Demanding notability sources for a 2 hour old article is not in line with the wikipedia guidelines. Beyond that, this is just a rehashing of what have commented on extensively above. Initial sources, in addition to those in the article have been offered with a request for discussion on a criteria framework appropriate for the topic. The subject has clearly been referenced externally, the question is if the initial references presented meet community consensus as sufficiently reliable. That doesn't mean a yes or no vote, it means a discussion as to the factual merits in light of the specific subject. One simple example. Under what criteria does external reference to the notability of a patch/add-on to an already notable software satisfy the notability criteria for software. In a non-software example, for example, if the Spice Girls got a new member, that member would be notable by virtue of her connection to the group. Even if there was no press anywhere on her. Or, the mere fact if cited by external source that Mr. X has become CEO of Microsoft would make him notable, by virtue of his position, even if not press existed on him other than that he was CEO. (Obviously not all associated with a notable subject are notable because of that connection. A new programmer hired by MS would not seem to be notable for that reason alone. The connection between the subject and the notable subject must itself be significant and notable.)YSWT (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite all that you have typed, you managed to completely avoid providing any of the papers or other documentation that you imply exist. An AFD runs for 5 days. For an expert in the subject, this should be ample time to provide sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your assertion is that the article is my personal responsibility ? You proposed standard is that 5 days is sufficient for an article to be visited and exposed and for contributors to seek out and provide notability references ? Am not clear as to your view-- you agree that if the eccoPro software is notable (as shown my external reference) and that the addition/modification made to the program by the add-on is notable as shown by external reference that satisfies notability for you ? You agree that with a technical software subject external reference to notability from the list server recoganized (per external reference proof) that reference of notability within that relevant community satisifies the notability requirement for specialty software ? You have a different standard for determining software notability ? (so it will be clear what additional evidence of notability is to your view, required.) YSWT (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - despite all the tl;dr discussion above, the fact remains that references 1 - 5 are MagicView's own, and references 6 - 10 don't mention it; the article cites no independent reliable source and so does not establish notability. All the sound and fury, and the number of SPAs coming out of the woodwork, suggest that this is an attempt to use WP for promotion. The amount of effort that has gone into rhetoric here could surely have been more usefully employed. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• response on a 2 hour old article the issue is not *if* article references establish notability, but *could it*. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." There are clear external references that can be added regarding "eccoPro", there are external references that can be added establishing the notability of the subject to "eccoPro". Further, there are references of notability in the relevant technical forums which are recognized by the relevant technical community as being authoritative. references can be added establishing that within the relevant community using this software the software is notable. Examples have been offered above, and within the article. The importance/notability of djvu/pdf/rtf edit/display ability for organization/outline software can be established. The importance/notability even critical element of being able to capture web pages and organize them has been documented in the article. The article establishes this tool does something unique, and doing that thing is notable and important.

"SPAs coming out of the woodwork" is not accurate, and allusion to "promotion" not supported by anything actually in the article. YSWT (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2 hours is a red herring. What about all the intervening days? Not one whiff of evidence for notability has been brought forward. -- Whpq (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not one whiff of evidence for notability has been brought forward." isn't discussion. An article needs to have a notable subject in order to have its own article. Everyone agrees on that. Notability must be established by reliable reference. We are in agreement here as well. With software (as demonstrated by the MS Viewer article) reference is generally to the developer's web page, reflecting the technical specifications and information of the article. Notability reference does not come from the developer's site. But notability can be established by external reference describing the subject without naming it. For example, a source could establish that "any human 9 feet tall is an important subject matter" by then establishing the subject of the article is a human 9 feet tall importance has been established by external reference.YSWT (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the expert, we're stupid. I get it. We don't know software, we don't know Wikipedia. Make us dumbasses understand: show us a single article discussing this miraculous program--a discussion that's in-depth, which evaluates and appraises, published in a real journal or magazine or book or newspaper. Wphq is quite right: all this energy you've wasted when all you had to was produce some sources. Stop blathering about what an outstanding superbrilliant expert you are, and produce some sources. Stop haranguing us and wasting our time and produce some sources. Don't tell me to do it, cause I tried (yes, I did) and I failed--probably cause I'm a dumbass, no doubt, who doesn't understand software or Wikipedia or reliable sources. So you do it. If anyone is still reading this: I really think it's time for WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh, just 1 day left. I wouldn't want this be SNOWed and leave him the impression that he didn't receive a fair treatment. Just don't reply to the discussion and he won't reply back to you. Also, keep in mind that you don't need to address every point raised by the other party in a discussion, you can reply only to the important points and plainly ignore the minor ones that wouldn't advance the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The placement of the article for deletion after 1.5 hours of being drafted, the vigorous calls to SNOW after 2 and 3 days, seems pretty clear evidence that the calls to delete are non-objective. The strawman articles and personal insults demonstrate the lack of objectivity. The article involves a subject of specialty. Within the relevant community the external sources available demonstrate that. But I didn't raise that, nor even mention it in relationship to notability. It was in the context of COI.

• The issue is notability. You, and many others are looking to see "a single article discussing this miraculous program--a discussion that's in-depth, which evaluates and appraises, published in a real journal or magazine or book or newspaper". Because the area is highly specialized, finding *that* specific kind of reference is likely going to take longer than a week. There is, and should not be a '5 day rule' for article deletion in relationship to notability except where there are objective reasons that the subject is clearly not notable based on subject matter. (What someone at for lunch, most likely not notable-- unless maybe they are the president of US, etc.).

• In modern 'information age' there is an explosion of information and specialization. At one time 'all that there is to know of importance' about the world could be found in a few books. No longer. One result is that huge amounts of important, notable, but *specialized* information is not found in books, 'real journals or magazines'. The information is found in technical 'list servers' and 'forums' and the blogs of the experts in that specialty. 'Real journals' may discuss 'pop' software, but specialty software important to that specialty is discussed in the media *relevant to that specialty* which often is a list server, blog or internet forum. To establish what is important within such a community, objective evidence of notability is found in the relevant authoritative media of that community. This may be a blog, forum, etc., and not a 'journal or magazine'. As human knowledge expands, this has become true for many, even most areas of specialty. Notable knowledge, techniques and modern practices of dentists, hair removal specialists, etc. etc., is found in the specialties relevant forum-- recognized by that specialty as authoritative.

It sounds to me as if you are describing fancruft. If it is notable only to a tiny, tiny minority (one that does not seem to use journals, magazines, or any other form of media other than word of mouth or forums--in which case they likely would not turn to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia), then perhaps it is not notable as a whole. Vincent Valentine 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Other editors such as "A beautiful mind" have recognized this. No one else has to agree, but in order to reach consensus one way or the other, a rational discussion is necessary. If there is a wikipedia guideline that as an automatic rule, a topic must be 'published in a real journal or magazine or book or newspaper' to be notable, please enlighten. Certainly if a topic is so published it is more clearly notable. But my argument is that other external references can establish, and do in this case establish notability.

• There are 30,000 some google results for "MagicView Software". There is no way in 5 days to review and determine what review of the subject might be found there. Beyond that, in an area of specialty many journal articles are not searchable nor accessible for free via the internet. Determining notability is not something that should be required to be done within 1.5 hours, or even 5 days.

Feel free to use the Sandbox as a subpage on your own userpage to take as much time as you need to create the page, using reliable sources; or request the page be made by an interested user. You can work on the page in a way that does not make it public (thus not erroding Wikipedia's credibility through COI, among other things) and yet it still allows you time and space to develop it. I myself have made sandbox versions of pages before, that is what the sandbox is for. Vincent Valentine 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It just begs the question, why are you in such a rush ?

• Also *critical* is the clear double standard being applied. The template used for this article "Microsoft Word Viewer" contains no external references to notability. All but one link are to the developer's website. Review of the topics makes clear that the article is the norm, and not the exception of software wikipedia articles.

Propose those articles, and I will be happy to get involved in determining what I feel is best for Wikipedia in each case. As for right now, this is the article that is being discussed. Crying foul is not sufficient; we are discussing this article's merits, or lack thereof. Vincent Valentine 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• People come to wikipedia looking to find knowledge. Usually, in my view, they come to seek knowledge on a particular topic. Inclusion of a topic *in its own article* does not 'advertise' to anyone the subject of the topic, it does, however, provide knowledge to those who seek it.

• Determination of notablity needs to based on external reference, not the subjective knowledge of the editor, with one exception. If you are an expert in the field covered by the topic, some topics are clearly not notable, and allowing a day, a month, even a year for the 'fleshing out' of an article will not help. In that case 'SNOWing' a topic , or deleting it 5 days after being first drafter makes sense. But where you're not an expert on the subject, an article should be allowed to be developed. Article writing should be a process, and not a 'fast track' one. Wikipedia, to my view, should be an encyclopedia of referenced knowledge, not an abstract of web articles. YSWT (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've had 5 days to add all this "develop" stuff you've been wanting to do to the article's talk page. You've been reminded of this for 5 days. You've made it abundantly obvious that you've had the time over each of the last five days to do so. That should have been sufficient. Apparently even you, the world's foremost expert on the subject, couldn't find the resources necessary to improve the article. Rklawton (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to YSWT's above paragraph: Using the Sandbox allows you time to develop the article. Creating a stub that is not notable seems like the "fast track" process you describe above. To quote you here: "Wikipedia, to my view, should be an encyclopedia of referenced knowledge, not an abstract of web articles."--in that case you would not mind if we deleted this article, then, as it is poorly referenced, and the references that do exist outside of the subject's own webpages are merely snippets from other places that don't directly mention the source? Deletion of this article benefits the Wikipedia project as a whole. Vincent Valentine 15:15, 6 March 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.