840:
though, that attest to the software's significance. I've never heard of this piece of software before, and I don't use photo software, so what source can you point me to that will reassure me that this this particular photo software stands out from the many others that have existed to the point where we can write a good article about it? The gold standard here is in-depth reviews. Tutorials, blog posts, and directory entries can all exist for non-notable software, so pointing out that they exist here doesn't help us in understanding what notability exists.
503:? In addition, I encourage the reading of CNET policy were you can conclude that not just any software is published by CNET. CNET is independent on deciding if they publish or not the software. Then, not all software are reviewed and rated by CNET. For this reason, I don't understand why COM Magazin or Computer Easy would be more relevant than CNET, they are all different significant sources. Finally, if you run this query on google you will verify that
261:- Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references; refs provided are to download sites which are not considered independent as they provide the software. A search found other download sites, but did not turn up any significant RS coverage apart from this (possibly RS) german magazine
647:
Everything do discriminate somehow. And basically everything discriminates more then CNET. Basically, only software with no downloads and known malware can't make to CNET. So CNET is practically indiscriminate. And again, it offers downloads of software it reviews, which means it is not independent.
839:
by now. Reliability isn't a binary characteristic: the less (potentially) controversial the claim, the weaker the source is allowed to be. CNet is perfectly reliable in establishing that the software exists, but it doesn't take much to get CNet to host your software. I'm not seeing any sources,
602:
Of course CNET's editors' reviews are reliable sources. Still, they host a lot of software downloads, and their reviews are written to promote software they host, thus promoting services. The problem here is not with their bias, but with the fact that they host indiscriminate collection of software
218:
I agree with
Ritchie333. The article has remained at stub status since creation. It has had a template / tag on it for two years. The article is not being maintained and services no purpose. I gently disagree about "notable" - this is the only free desktop photo gallery software listed on the
305:
The NPOV tag was set in July 2012 because "the referenced cnet article also reported problems with the installer, which were not referenced in the article". In July 2013, an edit was made to the article to include this issue but no reply was provided and NPOV tag remains there. Also an internet
467:
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, because although CNET distributes any software under the sun, some random person can't just make up an editor review, so it comes with good standing. I wouldn't expect a non-independent source to say "The program doesn't come with much in the way of
798:
it says "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction." I would say HTTPhotos is worthy of notice, especially when it is the only freeware desktop application in
793:
mentioning the tool. There are some tutorials written by people from different countries (see article references). There is a significant usage of this tool (see google query) allowing people to make an independent photo gallery for free. If I check at
776:
beyond a c-net review". We are still discussing whether or not CNET is a reliable source (I believe it is because of initial CNET acceptance to publish and additional CNET review). I've pointed the following press sources:
164:
495:
reference for, let's say, Picasa. Picasa is for sure a very well known application since Google acquisition but if you look at the wikipedia references on Picasa and you ignore all the references from
633:
published on CNET. I also understand your concern on the fact that CNET also distributes the software but they would not distribute it if they believe the software will bring no attention.
282:: download sites' editors' reviews are not exactly independent, so they don't contribute to subject's notability. "com!" magazine, if it is RS at all, is obviously not sufficient. —
564:
Coverage can be found on the web about Picasa, I was only surprised not to see any significant wikipedia references attached to the Picasa article. Two weights, two measures.
117:
236:
306:
search with "httphotos" keyword shows many websites built with this tool which in my opinion is enough to make this tool notable. Here are some independent reviews:
158:
790:
399:
A source like CNET contains a publisher description but also an Editor (CNET staff) review. Could you please tell how such a review is Self
Publishing?
550:, et cetera, et cetera. Narrowing the search to the data Google acquired the service and rolled it out would provide several more in-depth stories.
124:
220:
17:
786:
778:
480:
434:
392:
319:
262:
211:
737:
580:
523:
426:
The CNET source is okay, sorry, I assumed since I'd mentioned it at the top of the AfD I wasn't including it in my assessment.
415:
366:
871:
845:
757:
706:
665:
620:
555:
458:
291:
219:'comparison of photo gallry software' page. (I have no idea if my comment is in correct place, please refactor if it isn't
800:
752:
reads "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." That's not the case here.
90:
85:
179:
94:
892:
40:
782:
325:
146:
77:
841:
753:
702:
551:
315:
Chapter 32 (Free web publishing software) from "Digital
Photography for Next to Nothing" written by John Lewell
224:
725:
568:
511:
403:
354:
140:
858:
It is very inaccurate summary. All of the sources that were presented are either too short to demonstrate
543:
888:
36:
920:
136:
478:
432:
390:
270:
209:
875:
849:
820:
761:
741:
710:
669:
642:
624:
584:
559:
527:
482:
462:
436:
419:
394:
370:
295:
274:
250:
228:
213:
81:
59:
816:
733:
638:
576:
519:
411:
362:
245:
172:
867:
661:
616:
454:
287:
186:
56:
836:
749:
698:
331:
629:
CNET do discriminate, please refer CNET policy. I also imagine it would be difficult to get an
73:
65:
320:
http://www.com-magazin.de/news/software/httphotos-3.0-erstellt-dynamische-galerien-220196.html
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
887:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
608:
381:
200:
597:
473:
427:
385:
266:
204:
773:
718:
694:
196:
772:
The initial complaint was: "Non notable piece of software, with no detailed coverage in
717:"in the way of" doesn't provide any precise arguments, could you please justify against
830:
812:
729:
634:
572:
515:
407:
358:
240:
152:
653:
649:
539:
199:
beyond a c-net review. This must have been one of the first articles I passed through
863:
657:
612:
450:
343:
283:
53:
535:
384:. the COM! and Computer Easy reviews are the only real ones that carry any weight.
326:
http://www.computereasy.nl/tips-en-tools/internet/thumbnails-en-galerij-maken/3183/
111:
630:
547:
908:
652:
use, regardless the fact that editor's reviews from CNET are absolutely OK for
795:
310:
803:. Now, it is a lot less popular as Google Picasa software, but I don't think
748:
Not sure what you're asking for. The applicable notability criterion at
505:
about 1,650,000 web pages have been built using the freeware HTTPhotos
921:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22httphotos+create+photo+gallery%22
337:
445:
OK: it distributes this software, so it is nowhere close to being
881:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
468:
documentation". For me it falls down on not being particularly
487:
If we say the CNET editor's review is "not being particularly
332:
http://download.cnet.com/HTTPhotos/3000-13455_4-75126139.html
265:, which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability.
195:
Non notable piece of software, with no detailed coverage in
107:
103:
99:
171:
472:
coverage, merely being a brief product description.
203:, and looking back now, I've got no idea why I did.
185:
344:http://www.nonags.com/freeware-httphotos_4256.html
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
895:). No further edits should be made to this page.
491:coverage" then I would be curious to be shown a
648:Any of these is enough to disqualify CNET for
237:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
909:https://upload.cnet.com/2706-21_5-973-9.html
235:Note: This debate has been included in the
311:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sya34vR4vf8
234:
603:and review random pieces without making
901:
835:, I assume you've had a chance to read
507:, which in my opinion is significant.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
801:Comparison of photo gallery software
862:, unreliable or not independent. —
324:reviewed by Computer Easy magazine
534:Significant coverage for Picasa:
24:
338:http://httphotos.findmysoft.com/
605:reusable notability assessment
499:, then can you find something
1:
785:and I'm now adding this one
770:To sum-up current situation:
779:COM! - Das Computer Magazin
940:
693:—Not enough in the way of
380:Most of those sources are
318:reviewed by COM! magazine
876:19:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
850:16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
821:12:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
762:10:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
742:10:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
711:07:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
670:18:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
643:10:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
625:09:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
585:09:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
560:07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
528:13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
483:10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
463:09:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
437:09:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
420:20:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
395:16:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
371:22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
296:15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
275:20:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
251:16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
229:18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
214:16:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
60:23:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
884:Please do not modify it.
787:Báo điện tử một thế giới
32:Please do not modify it.
783:Computer Easy Magazine
263:com-magazin.de review
201:Articles for Creation
860:significant coverage
842:Lesser Cartographies
754:Lesser Cartographies
703:Lesser Cartographies
552:Lesser Cartographies
336:reviewed Findmysoft
864:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
658:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
613:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
451:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
284:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
789:. There is also a
48:The result was
745:
728:comment added by
588:
571:comment added by
531:
514:comment added by
423:
406:comment added by
374:
357:comment added by
330:reviewed by CNET
253:
931:
924:
918:
912:
906:
886:
834:
774:reliable sources
744:
722:
611:is all about. —
601:
587:
565:
530:
508:
422:
400:
373:
351:
342:reviewed Nonags
248:
243:
197:reliable sources
190:
189:
175:
127:
115:
97:
34:
939:
938:
934:
933:
932:
930:
929:
928:
927:
919:
915:
907:
903:
899:
893:deletion review
882:
828:
723:
595:
566:
509:
401:
352:
309:youtube video:
246:
241:
132:
123:
88:
72:
69:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
937:
935:
926:
925:
913:
900:
898:
897:
878:
855:
854:
853:
852:
767:
766:
765:
764:
714:
713:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
544:New York Times
397:
349:
348:
347:
346:
340:
334:
328:
322:
316:
313:
299:
298:
277:
255:
254:
193:
192:
129:
68:
63:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
936:
922:
917:
914:
910:
905:
902:
896:
894:
890:
885:
879:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
851:
847:
843:
838:
832:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
797:
792:
788:
784:
780:
775:
771:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
720:
716:
715:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
689:
688:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
599:
594:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
481:
479:
477:
476:
471:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
435:
433:
431:
430:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
398:
396:
393:
391:
389:
388:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
345:
341:
339:
335:
333:
329:
327:
323:
321:
317:
314:
312:
308:
307:
304:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
252:
249:
244:
238:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
216:
215:
212:
210:
208:
207:
202:
198:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
923:Google query
916:
904:
883:
880:
859:
808:
804:
769:
768:
724:— Preceding
690:
656:purposes. —
604:
567:— Preceding
510:— Preceding
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
474:
469:
446:
442:
441:No, CNET is
428:
402:— Preceding
386:
353:— Preceding
350:
302:
279:
258:
221:31.55.15.178
217:
205:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
120:
49:
47:
31:
28:
911:CNET Policy
631:Hello world
540:PC Magazine
501:significant
493:significant
489:significant
470:significant
447:independent
159:free images
796:Notability
598:Ritchie333
497:google.com
475:Ritchie333
429:Ritchie333
387:Ritchie333
382:unreliable
267:Dialectric
247:talk to me
206:Ritchie333
889:talk page
831:FromSpace
813:FromSpace
730:FromSpace
635:FromSpace
573:FromSpace
516:FromSpace
408:FromSpace
359:FromSpace
242:Jinkinson
74:HTTPhotos
66:HTTPhotos
37:talk page
891:or in a
837:WP:NSOFT
750:WP:NSOFT
738:contribs
726:unsigned
699:WP:NSOFT
697:to meet
607:, which
581:contribs
569:unsigned
536:PC World
524:contribs
512:unsigned
416:contribs
404:unsigned
367:contribs
355:unsigned
118:View log
54:RoySmith
39:or in a
809:popular
805:notable
165:WP refs
153:scholar
91:protect
86:history
807:means
691:Delete
609:WP:GNG
280:Delete
259:Delete
137:Google
95:delete
57:(talk)
50:delete
872:track
719:WP:RS
695:WP:RS
666:track
621:track
548:Wired
459:track
292:track
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
112:views
104:watch
100:links
52:. --
16:<
868:talk
846:talk
817:talk
791:book
758:talk
734:talk
707:talk
662:talk
654:WP:V
650:WP:N
639:talk
617:talk
577:talk
556:talk
520:talk
455:talk
449:. —
412:talk
363:talk
303:Keep
288:talk
271:talk
225:talk
173:FENS
147:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
721:?
701:.
443:not
187:TWL
116:– (
874:)
848:)
819:)
811:.
781:,
760:)
740:)
736:•
709:)
668:)
641:)
623:)
583:)
579:•
558:)
546:,
542:,
538:,
526:)
522:•
461:)
418:)
414:•
369:)
365:•
294:)
273:)
239:.
227:)
167:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
870:•
866:(
844:(
833::
829:@
815:(
756:(
732:(
705:(
664:•
660:(
637:(
619:•
615:(
600::
596:@
575:(
554:(
518:(
457:•
453:(
410:(
361:(
290:•
286:(
269:(
223:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
121:·
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.