368:
them so that only those packages that are genuinely technically or historically important get articles. A mention in a review alongside several of its competitor packages -- the substance of the NY Times review -- may count under the general notability guideline, which to me shows that it doesn't work when we're dealing with products like this, made by people with marketing departments and advertising budgets. -
989:
notability of a product--they are perhaps even a better evidence than the majority of "awards" . WP:N makes it very clear that famous is not necessary for notability. If it were, we'd be a much abridged encyclopedia. Technically or historically important is making a judgement about the value of something, and we do not do that.
419:, but now it is again being considered for deletion. The company has been around for a year, and the events noted had references and links. Whether they were notable or not is a matter of perspective. For a small app company that came out of nowhere, the events were notable. I'm happy to take this article back to the
1132:
Ventura County Star - This is so far the only undeniably mainstream RS that gives extensive coverage and, unfortunately, it's a regional C-list paper with a low circulation promoting a local business. Does this actually confer notability? We would not accept this as conferring notability on any other
511:
Sorry even given the secondary sources that I've seen I don't see the notability. Each of them have reviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of applications for the iPhone. Some of them review multiple applications every single day. The fact that people have written reviews of your product doesn't prove
443:
of the article. Among 100,000 apps on the App Store, this app has been listed in the Top 100 paid apps under the
Education category since August. It has the best customer reviews among comparable apps on the App Store. The information mentioned here is independently verifiable, but has to be done on
275:
Due to the added mobility offered by personal internet-enabled devices like the iPod touch, securing the home PC, home network, or the enterprise network is not enough anymore. Modern devices can be used to access the
Internet anytime anywhere. This expands the need to offer filtering solutions that
1141:
product from things of significance. As you said
Consumer Reports does, this is one of dozens or hundreds of similar products. Does this review from a blog, in the context that they review anything the blogger chooses to with no editorial discretion, show any significance? If so, when can we expect
1095:
RSs for notability--they do not give significant coverage of any one product, but discuss a type of product, and give comparative statistics and a brief evaluation of usually dozens and sometimes hundred of similar products.--except for automobiles, which they do give full reviews, and where I
367:
Probably not. Articles about run of the mill software packages are doomed to become either spam vehicles or unexpandable stubs. Remove the spam, and you're left with a minimal article such as your edits left. Yes, my opinion is and remains that notability guidelines need to be tightened up for
988:
on the basis of reviews. All consumer products do not get reviews--anyone who thinks so is probably biased by the areas where a;ll major consumer products like automobile models, get reviewed, and are all notable. Full independent reviews are in my opinion, the most reliable of all sources for
615:
So your goal here is just to have your software listed on that "List of..." article? Sorry but the only reason we have "List of" articles is to point to articles. And the only reason we have stubs here is because people haven't gotten around to writing articles. The idea isn't to that a page can
786:
And you call yourself an inclusionist? Most software nominations show that not all software gets reviewed. Even when other things besides reviews gets shown, you have a problem with them also. It seems like your issue is that you don't want any software to have an article.
948:
Yes, I have that opinion about everything not just software. Just because a film or book is reviewed doesn't make it notable. There are whole industries that have developed around reviewing anything and everything, simply having something reviewed doesn't make it notable.
211:
Please note although the NYT reference is just a blog post, the app wasn't mentioned in the actual paper. And the "groundswell of support" online petition at petitionsonline only collected 152 signatures. Point being the app seems fairly non-notable.
918:
What difference does it make if one site reviews hundreds of products or three or four sites review hundreds of products? Out of all the sources there is only one that isn't in the business of reviewing software every week or every day. One.
641:
Do you have a source that proves that your software is the most popular content control software on the iPhone? And I'm not asking for you to tell us that if we analyse the iTunes Store we'll come to that conclusion too (that would be
487:
Absolutely. But, given the secondary sources, do you still feel there isn't enough notability here to merit an article or stub? I will work on modifying the content to have a neutral point of view, if that is the point of contention.
411:: I'm a new Knowledge (XXG) contributor learning the ropes using this article as an experiment. The first article submitted was deleted, so I followed the guidelines in creating the second stub by adding references wherever possible.
933:
Do you only have that opinion about software? Do you think that film or book review sites don't show notability? Your opinions are very bias and not supported by anything. Articles don't get deleted in AFD by opinions like yours.
1136:
Appadvice.com - A group blog that accepts ads from the products being reviewed, with close to 600 reviews, how does this separate
Mobiclip from any other iPhone applet? The point of notability is to separate the routine
529:
You also said that your app is in the top 100 paid education apps. If you think that qualifies it as notable, do you think we should automatically have articles on all the applications in the top 100 paid education apps
1007:
Ignoring the debate about whether a review constitutes notability. So just to be clear, if I start selling a piece of software you are perfectly okay with me coming to
Knowledge (XXG) and writing an article about it?
801:
Ignoring the debate about whether a review constitutes notability. Just to be clear, if I start selling a piece of software you are perfectly okay with me coming to
Knowledge (XXG) and writing an article about it?
1068:
So every product in every monthly issue of
Consumer Reports deserves an article? I don't think so. Whether something is technically or historically significant, that is a call for reliable sources to make.
162:
382:
This article is neither made by a marketing department nor for advertising purposes. Please review the article based on merit, and attribute any discrepancies to the inexperience of the author.
616:
either be an article or a stub. And those "List of..." articles get deleted quite frequently, because again the intention is that
Knowledge (XXG) should be a collection of articles, not lists.
1200:
Just to confirm. You don't have a problem with people writing articles on
Knowledge (XXG) about their own products or services? You're fine with Knowledge (XXG) being used as a billboard?
462:
You are aware I take it, that we tend to dislike people using
Knowledge (XXG) as a billboard to advertise their own products, we even have a content guideline explicitly explaining it.
123:
581:. This is the most popular content control software for the iPhone or iPod Touch, illustrated by its presence in the Top 100. Would it merit a presence on the list based on that?
48:. -While there were spam concerns, editors supporting the article pointed to the not-insignificant coverage. Both positions are reasonable, and no clear consensus developed.
886:
So back to the review==notability argument. Given that appadvice has reviewed somewhere in the region of four to five hundred apps, are they all automatically notable now?
250:: Per the first five reviews in the article. The NYT blog is a reliable source because New York Times is. It's not a requirement that reliable sources have to be offline.
765:
156:
1042:
been accepted as such. The criterion of historically or technically significant for products, however, is I think your own invention. for products.
692:
and the fact that no other comparable app is on the list, there is no independent third-party source that mentions that Mobicip is the most popular.
1123:
1151:
DGG, what I'm asking, is for a critical review of sources when they are presented. You said you want to keep this on the basis of reviews. How do
1122:
UnwiredView - This also appears long because it shows a bunch of screenshots and single sentence paragraphs - clearly a review designed for the
1115:
NYTimes - This online-only review hides most of the review behind a link, but clicking through shows the rest of the article is about
17:
1143:
689:
280:
PR insertions of "articles" like this need to be dealt with summarily, without even the opportunity for getting bogged down in
290:
in order to merit articles, not merely existence verifiable by reviews; this makes no claim of that kind of importance. -
1038:
it gets such reviews, it is notable. Full product reviews are the sort of RSs that get written about products, and have
1112:
Let's examine these reviews in the article then. There are 5. Three are trivial, consisting of one to three paragraphs.
415:
was retained with no corrections, but there was a note that the stub needs to be expanded. In response to the prompt, I
58:
1222:
830:
Cool I get it now. Step 1) Develop application. Step 2) Write article on Knowledge (XXG) about application. Step3) Get
36:
177:
96:
91:
1096:
would indeed consider them significant--and also except for an occasional featured review of a single major product.
144:
1205:
1013:
954:
924:
891:
839:
807:
746:
All consumer products get reviewed. Reviews do not establish notability. Those are the only references that exist.
651:
552:
470:
236:
217:
201:
100:
1126:
but is not actually detailed. Is UnwiredView even an RS we should consider for notability? It's a two person blog.
1159:
large numbers of references that claim notability without examining them, have we actually determined anything?
1221:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
83:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1156:
547:
I'm sorry but what makes your app any more notable than any of the other thousands of iPhone apps out there?
229:
1129:
about.com - Shows the routine page splat that drives their advertising revenue. This is not good coverage
697:
586:
493:
449:
428:
387:
138:
1201:
1009:
950:
920:
887:
835:
803:
647:
646:). I mean an actual reliable third-party source that says "Mobicip is the most popular blah blah blah".
548:
466:
232:
213:
197:
693:
582:
489:
445:
424:
383:
1164:
1074:
751:
318:
134:
939:
909:
853:
821:
792:
358:
344:
309:
255:
170:
1209:
1193:
1168:
1107:
1078:
1053:
1017:
1000:
958:
943:
928:
913:
895:
857:
843:
825:
811:
796:
780:
755:
735:
723:
701:
655:
590:
579:
this page on Knowledge (XXG) that lists available content control software for different platforms
556:
474:
453:
432:
391:
377:
362:
348:
334:
313:
299:
281:
259:
240:
221:
205:
65:
1189:
577:
Sorry, I didn't mean that at all. The article was meant to be a stub that can be referred from
276:
can work within the constraints of a low-power device and offer protection wherever it is used.
184:
776:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1138:
463:
439:
To make the case for notability, please also see the other reviews besides New York Times in
287:
373:
330:
295:
54:
268:
196:
Created by a single-purpose editor who is here purely to advertise his or her own product.
1160:
1070:
747:
685:
1184:
I think the reviews in the article are just sufficient to meet the notability guideline.
643:
578:
353:
I fixed it, but that won't change your opinion because you think that it's non-notable.
1146:? It's reviewed, in-depth, from a specialized RS at least as credible as appadvice.com.
935:
905:
849:
831:
817:
788:
354:
340:
305:
251:
228:
Just noticed as well, a previous article advertising this software was speedy deleted.
1091:
I agree with you. Those are excellent examples of the sort of group reviews that are
1185:
1103:
1049:
996:
150:
772:
732:
87:
117:
423:. Also pointers to good practices for an article like this one would be useful.
369:
326:
291:
49:
267:. Even if sources can be found for this, the text we have been handed remains
339:
It reads like an advertisement, but from what I can see, it can be fixed.
1098:
1044:
991:
1119:
not this one. This is a trivial, routine, Consumer Reports style review.
848:
No, you don't. I'm fine with articles if they are neutral and notable.
79:
71:
816:
If it is neutral which I took care of the spam. No spam, no problem.
1155:
reviews show notability? When looked at critically, they do not. If
726:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
1215:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
286:
That said, commercial software products need some kind of
440:
420:
416:
412:
113:
109:
105:
169:
834:to rewrite to create legitimacy. Step 4) Profit!!!
731:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
183:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1225:). No further edits should be made to this page.
444:the App Store and so can't add references here.
766:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
1144:Sunbeam 3916 Heritage Series 2-Slice Toaster
760:
1034:f you start selling a piece of software,
764:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
684:Other than top 100 lists like this
288:historical or technical importance
24:
417:added more content and references
900:What don't you understand about
421:stub state that it was in before
304:This comment is full of bias.
1:
1210:16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
1194:10:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
1169:08:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
1108:18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1079:17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1054:18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1018:15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1001:05:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
959:21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
944:17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
929:16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
914:16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
896:15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
858:15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
844:15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
826:15:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
812:15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
797:02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
781:01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
756:01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
736:06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
702:00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
656:23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
591:20:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
557:19:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
475:17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
454:17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
433:17:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
392:17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
378:07:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
363:21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
349:21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
335:20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
314:20:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
300:15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
260:13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
241:13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
222:13:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
206:13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
66:02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
325:unambiguous advertising? -
1242:
1142:to start documenting the
1218:Please do not modify it.
319:Never tried to hide 'em.
32:Please do not modify it.
230:Mobicip Online Safety
464:Knowledge (XXG):Spam
321:You think that text
269:blatant advertising
44:The result was
1157:we simply accept
783:
769:
738:
644:original research
63:
61:So let it be done
56:
1233:
1220:
1202:AlistairMcMillan
1010:AlistairMcMillan
951:AlistairMcMillan
921:AlistairMcMillan
888:AlistairMcMillan
836:AlistairMcMillan
804:AlistairMcMillan
770:
730:
728:
648:AlistairMcMillan
549:AlistairMcMillan
467:AlistairMcMillan
284:over notability.
233:AlistairMcMillan
214:AlistairMcMillan
198:AlistairMcMillan
188:
187:
173:
121:
103:
59:
55:
34:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1223:deletion review
1216:
1139:run-of-the-mill
721:
370:Smerdis of Tlön
327:Smerdis of Tlön
292:Smerdis of Tlön
130:
94:
78:
75:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1239:
1237:
1228:
1227:
1212:
1197:
1196:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1120:
1117:other software
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
832:User:Joe Chill
758:
740:
739:
729:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
480:
479:
478:
477:
457:
456:
436:
435:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
351:
285:
279:
278:
273:
272:
262:
244:
243:
225:
224:
191:
190:
127:
74:
69:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1238:
1226:
1224:
1219:
1213:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
987:
984:
983:
960:
956:
952:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
782:
778:
774:
767:
763:
759:
757:
753:
749:
745:
742:
741:
737:
734:
727:
725:
720:
719:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
657:
653:
649:
645:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
495:
491:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
476:
472:
468:
465:
461:
460:
459:
458:
455:
451:
447:
442:
438:
437:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
406:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
283:
277:
270:
266:
265:Speedy delete
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
245:
242:
238:
234:
231:
227:
226:
223:
219:
215:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
195:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1217:
1214:
1181:
1152:
1116:
1097:
1092:
1043:
1039:
1035:
990:
985:
901:
761:
743:
722:
694:Whatsurstory
583:Whatsurstory
490:Whatsurstory
446:Whatsurstory
441:this version
425:Whatsurstory
413:This version
408:
384:Whatsurstory
322:
274:
264:
247:
193:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
50:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
512:notability.
157:free images
1161:Miami33139
1071:Miami33139
748:Miami33139
1040:uniformly
936:Joe Chill
906:Joe Chill
904:sources?
850:Joe Chill
818:Joe Chill
789:Joe Chill
773:• Gene93k
530:category?
355:Joe Chill
341:Joe Chill
306:Joe Chill
282:lawyering
252:Joe Chill
1186:Davewild
1133:product.
902:multiple
724:Relisted
124:View log
1124:ADD set
733:Spartaz
163:WP refs
151:scholar
97:protect
92:history
80:Mobicip
72:Mobicip
744:Delete
194:Delete
135:Google
101:delete
51:Xymmax
1153:these
1104:talk
1050:talk
997:talk
323:isn't
178:JSTOR
139:books
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1206:talk
1190:talk
1182:Keep
1165:talk
1075:talk
1014:talk
986:Keep
955:talk
940:talk
925:talk
910:talk
892:talk
854:talk
840:talk
822:talk
808:talk
793:talk
777:talk
762:Note
752:talk
698:talk
690:this
688:and
686:this
652:talk
587:talk
553:talk
494:talk
471:talk
450:talk
429:talk
409:Keep
388:talk
374:talk
359:talk
345:talk
331:talk
310:talk
296:talk
256:talk
248:Keep
237:talk
218:talk
202:talk
171:FENS
145:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
1099:DGG
1093:not
1045:DGG
1036:and
992:DGG
771:--
185:TWL
122:– (
1208:)
1192:)
1167:)
1106:)
1077:)
1052:)
1016:)
999:)
957:)
942:)
927:)
912:)
894:)
856:)
842:)
824:)
810:)
795:)
779:)
768:.
754:)
700:)
654:)
589:)
555:)
473:)
452:)
431:)
390:)
376:)
361:)
347:)
333:)
312:)
298:)
258:)
239:)
220:)
204:)
165:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
1204:(
1188:(
1163:(
1102:(
1073:(
1048:(
1012:(
995:(
953:(
938:(
923:(
908:(
890:(
852:(
838:(
820:(
806:(
791:(
775:(
750:(
696:(
650:(
585:(
551:(
496:)
492:(
469:(
448:(
427:(
386:(
372:(
357:(
343:(
329:(
308:(
294:(
271::
254:(
235:(
216:(
200:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.