Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABCpdf


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ABCpdf

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software product. No independent reviews to be found. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I am the primary author of the ABCpdf article and do have a vested interest in seeing it kept. This is a new article, my first, and I would very much like to see it improved, not deleted. Thanks for your understanding, and my apologies for any wiki faux pas. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - ABCpdf is a popular software development library and I would like to argue that it is more notable than others included on the List of PDF software. Googling for linked sites corroborates this statement. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC):
 * ABCpdf (get results) Results 1 - 10 of about 1,140 linking to www.abcpdf.com. (0.30 seconds)
 * JasperReports (get results) Results 1 - 10 of about 148 linking to jasperforge.org. (0.20 seconds)
 * iText (get results)Results 1 - 10 of about 190 linking to www.1t3xt.com. (0.34 seconds)
 * TCPDF (get results)Results 1 - 10 of about 129 linking to www.tcpdf.org. (0.18 seconds)
 * Poppler(get results) Results 1 - 10 of about 98 linking to poppler.freedesktop.org. (0.22 seconds)
 * ReportLab (get results)Results 1 - 10 of about 50 linking to www.reportlab.org. (0.27 seconds)
 * PDF Clown (get results) Results 1 - 5 of 5 linking to www.stefanochizzolini.it/en/projects/clown/. (0.17 seconds)


 * [Software Technology Resources], a French publisher, is planning to print an article on ABCpdf in their June issue. I understand this will be an independent review, not an advertisement.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Affinemesh, I think the reason this argument is failing to persuade anyone is that those other articles may also be about non-notable software and therefore should be deleted as well; we'll never know without evaluating them, and perhaps we should, if only for fairness's sake. See WP:INN for more info.--chaser (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The problem perhaps stems from a lack of consensus on the List of PDF Software article. Is it a list of notable PDF software, or a more inclusive list of all PDF software? The former would be exceedingly short, whereas the latter could at least be of worth to those compiling other articles or reviews, etc. Unfortunately items on the list are typically deleted if they don't have their own article. This really could do with cleaning up, but I'm hesitant to debate it for fear of being perceived as biased.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of ABCpdf is useful for those seeking a commercially developed library with professional support. No other is currently mentioned on List of PDF software, or specifically for Microsoft operating systems.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The List of PDF software does not exclude commercial software, and deleting ABCpdf would deny its existance. See: Talk:List_of_PDF_software Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Although blogs in themselves may not be considered reliable sources, perhaps the fact that ABCpdf is being talked about is worthy of mention. Google for 'abcpdf blog' - 9,320 results.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Blog review [Matt Woodward's Blog]Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Independent review [TheDesignspace]Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is TheDesignspace a reliable source? It looks like a blog or somebody's website.--chaser (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The site is apparently maintained by an IT professional working for a university. It contains 476 articles. Netcraft reports the site as first seen in July 2002, ranking it 353030. The site is registered on its own domain, not a blog-hosting service. The articles are not written under a pseudonym. I appreciate this isn't exactly the [International Journal of Computational Science], ranked lower by Netcraft, but it is independent. I'm not sure this is a blog, and the author doesn't use the term to describte the site, and might be offended if someone did! Any volunteers? :) Affinemesh94464 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Refgardless of whether it is a blog or not, it is essentially somebody's website where they write about some stuff. There's no evidence to indicate that this one person's opinion would contribute to the notability of the product. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the site's owner: "This site serves both as a place to explore my interests and as an extra memory space to store the solutions to the software and web development issues I encounter daily. I began writing these posts and articles to avoid having to solve the same problem twice. Hopefully they will help others as well." . I refer you to WP:DUCK.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. Blogs don't count.  If it does get more coverage (and a single review is not likely to meet notability), the articel can be created then. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong - some blogs do count! ...
 * "Are weblogs reliable sources?
 * In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy.
 * Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available."
 * Note that this does not explicitly exclude all blogs. If someone would kindly point out where blogs are forbidden it would be much appreciated. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - If you can find a blog that is a reliable source and establishes notability for the software, then you can post it for evauation at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But generally speaking, blogs aren't reliable sources, and even more so for the purposes for establishing notability.  Of course there are exceptions to this guideline, but they are very narrowly defined as you have already noted and quoted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Blogs do not count as reliable sources, if ABCpdf is reviewed in a professional journal that may count.
 * There are no citations to any articles not written by Websupergoo in the article.
 * There are several blogs with unfavorable reviews of this product therefore the references above depict the bias that has made this article controversial (see the edits on the article that have been undone for 'unreliable' references with a negative tone).
 * The user petitioning to keep the article has stated they are close to Websupergoo by placing their promotional work on my talk page therefore validating that this article was not written from a neutral perspective: [].
 * [Software Technology Resources] is not a reliable source.

MajorDorkus (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note MajorDorkus has made several contributions to the ABCpdf article. These were typically regarded as defamatory, which is why they were removed by myself and other wikipedians. There is a reference to ABCpdf on his user page as part of the standard vandalism warning notice and was certainly not intended to promote ABCpdf. I sincerely apologise to MajorDorkus for locating this here. I only became aware this location may not have been appropriate after WikiDan61 advised MajorDorkus for committing a similar mistake. Please also note the User_talk:MajorDorkus page and ABCpdf section were not created by myself. The single addition I made was simply out of courtesy. To suggest this is promotional work is quite objectionable.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is not. They are a software sales business. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. I am unfamiliar with their printed publication, but suspect this would be similar to their website. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the content could do with some improvement but the page should be kept.
 * PDF Libraries are a specialist area. As such you should consider that the coverage of them is likely to involve a different set of media than say Alan Wilkins. This doesn't mean that they are less notable. Just that they are different.


 * The libraries listed earlier are a hotch potch. Some are appropriate (eg iText) and some are not. Some (eg PDFLib) are missing. However let's talk about iText as a good example of something reviewed in ways appropriate to the subject matter.


 * The iText entry is pretty self referential. The references are related to the iText web site or other parts of the iText community. The books are written by the author of iText. However I think that is fair enough because the software is notable simply by reference to the size of the community. The natural place to pull in details of iText is from that community. Indeed there is no-where else to get that information.


 * Or an entry such as Graphics Device Interface (Microsoft GDI). This is similar in that it is a similarly important entry for a similarly obscure type of library. Again you'll find that almost all the references are straight back to Microsoft. That's because most of the information comes from Microsoft.


 * ABCpdf is very similar. Being a web based project it has a community rooted in the web. So you wouldn't expect to find scholarly reviews. For the substance of the wikipedia entry you would expect a fair amount of reference to the source company itself. The same as iText or GDI.


 * Looking for external evidence of notability you would expect to find widespread small-scale discussions. So we're not talking big articles. We're typically talking about small, but widespread, reviews and discussions of quality levels from high through to low. This is exactly what we see. For example:


 * http://geekswithblogs.net/VROD/archive/2007/01/18/103868.aspx
 * http://forums.asp.net/t/1347592.aspx
 * http://my.opera.com/zeeans/blog/2006/12/07/abcpdf-landscape-example


 * These kinds of things are good as supporting information but they don't really work very well as references.


 * Yes this type of thing does spill over into the press. For example see this review in PC Magazine. Note that ABCpdf is the first item of software mentioned after Acrobat so it would appear that the author thought it was in some way notable.


 * http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1637611,00.asp


 * Some competitors obviously feel it is notable.


 * http://www.corda.com/abcpdf.php


 * As do some companies.


 * http://www.smilinggoat.net/development.aspx


 * So I know that ideally one would be looking for paper article or books on this software but that kind of evidence is more appropriate for a playwright rather than an item of software. The criteria used for software is slightly different simply because the subject is different.

Rollinghills (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Nobody is expecting that software will be documented in sources writing about biographies. However, there hs yet to be any deomstrated significant coverage in any sources, including sources that cover software.  The PC Magazine article is a passing mention of the product.  But PC Magazine  (and many other mgazines) do cover software and do reviews, yet there isn't any for this product. -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No WP:RS references to be found. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.