Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AZImage

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. Fram (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AZImage

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

A non-notable image converter, downloaded less than 3,000 times through it's entry at Cnet. Nothing in the article explains why this image converter is significantly different from it's competitors. The article was fully written by a primarily single-purpose account, that has made no edits since except to update this article, once. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep I am the article's primary author. Few things stated above are not correct and also some rules & recommendations regarding the AfD were not followed. There was no message sent to me as the creator of the article - I was lucky to discover it by chance. The stated "no edits since except to update this article, once" is not true - please look at the history page. If you look at my talk page and follow the discussions in the past, you will see that this article was already checked by another supervisor after a speedy deletion and a reinsertion. I am not sure why the download count on a single site can be used as a notability guideline for an article, please explain it. Looking at the history I can see some interest in the article / see the two updates following my edits. There is another article Comparison_of_image_viewers indirectly linked through Graphics_software which covers your question. I do not consider that comparing a product to others in the associated article can be an objective matter on the subject and improve the article (at least not when coming from the article's author). With the hope that I have answered your questions, based on the argumentation above and the fact that the article meets in my opinion the general notability guideline I recommend this article to be kept. rac 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not having notified you, but it is optional, and you did find the discussion. Further, since my primary concern is that no-one other than you is concerned for the article, it would have been a point in favor of keeping the article if an otherwise un-affiliated editor had spoken up first.

Now, regarding your specific claims: There have been 7 edits to the article made by accounts other than you. The first was a bot, the second was bot-assisted category change, followed by a reversion of the initial bot edit. Next there is a non-logged-in edit, updating the note about the most-recent version and making two tiny changes to the description. Then there's another bot-assisted minor cleanup, followed by a non-logged-in user adding a single, un-explained See Also link, followed by a non-logged-in user adding a three word phrase. That's all the editing this has been done from other than the original author. Pretty minimal; and the only content-edits were from non-logged-in users, who may be the original author, for all we know.

I looked at your talk page -- there is no discussion there, just standardized messages. There is nothing that justifies or illuminates the case for the article.

The download count on a rather well-known site such as Cnet is a useful guide to determine if a piece of software is widely known. Certainly it is not definitive, but you have not provided anything else.

The Comparison page, which also had the entry added by you, says nothing different than what is already on the article page. I appreciate your response, but what we need are sources. To quote WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please explain how this satisfies that. Also note: WP:SPIP. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have started writing the article I have looked and referenced 3 independent sources, they are still all online and valid WP:N. I am not sure what significant coverage quantitatively means, do you mean to find other reviews and references?

I will add some information to the article to address your other concern - what is differentiating AZImage from other image converters. Please review it, as I am not sure if such an information will not change the neutral point of view of the article.

I agree with you that the article has not received a lot of attention from the wiki community, but seems to be improving. Anonymous edits are not coming from me, I remain logged it. You have to consider that the product is relatively new. I discovered it in 2009 and used since then. rac 13:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotarucalin (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far the "independent" sources are a review on cnet, which is fair enough, and that page on freedownloadscenter.com where the "editor's review" is suspiciously similar to the "publisher's review" (I doubt that they were written by an independent party), and a third website which apparently only offers downloads of SoftEx software. However, to be kind to a new user: I'd happily switch to "keep" if there were more evidence that other people had found the application significant enough to discuss it. Normally 3 sources would make me happy, but I'm skeptical about the independence of 2 out of them 3. (Also, IMHO, a review in specialist media would carry more weight than "filler" on a download page). bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is lacking. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the opinions above, still I do not think that the article isn't relevant. I realized that there are two strong arguments against keeping this article: partially missing coverage from reliable independent sources and lack of contribution from the wiki community. I contacted the software publisher and hope they will also express their opinion on this / add some references. Regarding the reliable sources, I have done what was possible by researching the internet. I believe that wiki is a great way to share knowledge, even if it is sometimes a new subject that has not got a lot of attention. Rotarucalin (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't find that the small number of sources is negatively affecting this article. I use this tool from time to time. I discovered it over its link from the dcraw article, so I think that its entry is notable. Dan.lupu22 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No disrespect to the software, but there's not much indication of notability. I'm afraid that "a new subject that has not got a lot of attention" is not really what an encyclopaedia is for. Show us coverage that's independent of both the company and the download sites and we'll reconsider. (Not guaranteeing anyone's !vote - but these things can reverse with a few good references. Peridon (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion, but it just does not apply to software related articles on Wikipedia. Take for example Adobe Photoshop Album or most of the entries listed under [Image Viewers]. With few notable exceptions like Irfanview they are all having only links to the publisher's site and to download sites. I agree that the publisher site is not an independent source, but is most of the time a good reference even if not the most objective one. Should we delete the entry to iPhoto because it only has links to the publishers site? (rhetorical question) A download site as CNet is in my opinion a fair independent reviewer site, widely accepted in our industry. Rotarucalin (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for referencing are tighter these days. The Adobe article dates from 2005, when things were more relaxed. Feel free to tag it if you're not happy with it. What's accepted in your industry isn't necessarily what's accepted here. (It's definitely not the case in politics or religion either...) Perhaps we should tag iPhoto to spur someone into referencing it. Once again, feel free. You are entitled to if you think it doesn't fit the bill. But... We're here to discuss this article and what another article's got away with (so far) isn't relevant to this. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2010 (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.