Talk:PDF24 Creator

Importance
The PDF24 Creator is an important software and is very popular in Germany. The software makes is very easy to create PDF files out of any other application. A key feature of the PDF24 Creator is the ability to assemble PDF files based on others. Other software in this field often only have to PDF printer ability to print into a PDF, the PDF24 Creator extends that: You can do things like joining files, removing pages, pick some pages from one file and add the pages to another, move pages inside a file or just rotate pages. You can do a lot via drag & drop and you can auto convert all files which can be printed in the PDF printer. There are a lot of additional tools, all about the PDF files format, tools like compressing PDF files, splitting files, importing images via TWAIN as PDF or capturing the screen as a PDF.

Another fact is, that the PDF24 Creator is a free software. It's also free for commercial use. You can freely share and redistribute the application. You can also customize the software by creating a custom installer on the Website where you can exchange embedded pictures of the GUI. Companies like that because they like to see some company specific banners in the software.

It's also very rare to find a free PDF printer with a good feature base which does not contain spyware, malware, toolbars or which co-installs other software. As far as I could see, the PDF24 Creator installers are clean. I also opened the MSI file and searched for any malware, but I couldn't find something. This is very unique.

The change-log goes back to 2009 and and last version is from December 2016. There is an continuous development process since 2009.

--Sz5000 (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Solving issues
I've added some more secondary references and external citations so that the article should now meet the Wikipedia guidelines. I've checked other Wikipedia pages in this field and I think that this page meets the guidelines more then other pages. --Sz5000 (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources you add are, at best, routine reviews. The article falls far short of showing that this is a notable subject. I've restored the tags because maybe someone else can find sources I'm not seeing, but I don't believe this would survive an AfD discussion, certainly not in its current state. - Aoidh (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing the link to the Notability information page. Since the software is very public in Germany, I've done a book search in Google (German results) and the Google search (PDF24 Creator Google Books Search) shows that the PDF24 Creator is mentioned in 6 or 7 Books written in German. Seems not to be a full review, but rather a recommendation. Same for the Google scholar search. The German news results from Google (PDF24 Creator German News Results) are quite huge. Hope this information helps.--Sz5000 (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are extremely trivial mentions. Having a large number of Google results is not the same as having notability. - Aoidh (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a look at other pdf printer and pdf creator software Wikipedia pages (found on the pages List_of_PDF_software and List_of_virtual_printer_software) to check what reference these pages have and to check how these pages satisfy the notability guidelines, just to learn how I can write better Wikipedia articles. What I've seen is, that a lot of these pages have the same problem and a lot of these pages do not meet the notability guidelines and relies too much on references to primary sources. I've reviewed the pages PrimoPDF,NovaPDF, DoPDF, Solid_PDF_Creator, Universal_Document_Converter, Nitro_PDF, CC_PDF_Converter. A lot of them only reference simple software reviews and reference primary sources. It seems to be a common problem for a lot of software articles on Wikipedia. Some of my reviewed Wikipedia articles already have the notabilty tags on the page, which is consistent against the backdrop of the notability guidelines.--Sz5000 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about deletion request
The PDF24 Creator is marked for deletion. Nevertheless, I believe that it is worth to keep the software because the PDF24 Creator has some unique key features which makes the software so popular in Germany and some other European countries. One of the key features is the easy to use interface to assemble new PDF files based on others. You can load any file and you can pick some pages from here and some from there and you can freely merge files inti one. There is no other software which provides such an interface. Most of the material which can be used to solve the notability issue is in German and currently it's a bit harder to find papers in english. Even now, the article about the PDF24 Creator is better than some other software articles on Wikipedia. Have a look at PrimoPDF,NovaPDF, DoPDF or Solid_PDF_Creator, these articles give less information and have the same notability problem, they only reference simple software reviews, if any. We in our company use the PDF24 Creator on our clients. We have been using an other software before, but we decided to switch to PDF24, based on our list of pros and cons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz5000 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles are not kept because people find them "unique". Everything, any every person, is unique in some way. That does not make it notable. "Better than some other software articles" is also not a reason to keep this one. This article needs to be judged on its own merits, not in comparison with other problematic articles. In that regard, this article is lacking. If these sources are the best that can be found, we need to go ahead and send this to AfD. - Aoidh (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that notability of an article subject needs to be judged based on that subject. Feature set is a factor in that judgement and especially unique features as given here, are an important factor pointing towards notability. --83.135.228.180 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * People come to Wikipedia looking for information. I came looking for information on PDF24. Why delete it? If something negative comes up, it can be placed in this article, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulupoi (talk • contribs) 07:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability
According to techradar: http://downloads.techradar.com/downloads/category/office-and-finance/pdf-readers-and-editors .. this is second only to Acrobat for downloads. Additionally it is one of few without dodgy adware and spyware allegations against it - see: http://www.freewaregenius.com/the-best-freeware-virtual-pdf-printer-a-comparison/ This site gives it number-one Editor's Choice based on usability and the lack of above mentioned issues.

On a personal note I use it daily and it's very effective. Btw: I have no connection to the company.

I often research new software products via Wikipedia and I feel Wikipedia would be a lesser place if these software pages are deleted. There are many "software comparison" pages .. eg to take just one compeletley at random: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software If you examine this every one of the genealogy products compared has a link to a dedicated Wiki page. If we start deleting pages that Wiki self references then we'll start having lots of red links again like it was in the early days.

Why this obsession to prune everything? Disk space is cheap and you'll never be bothered by it unless you're actually looking for it... See Wiki page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper  which explains that it's not a problem that we need to ruthlessly delete everything.

I recommend it is KEPT and not deleted.

G6cid (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any claim of notability in this article, apart from the claim that it is "credited with more than 5 million downloads...in the category "PDF Software" on the German site Chip.de". Without context, I'm unimpressed. And that claim, in my opinion, is promotional. Deb (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)