Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AndreaMosaic


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure), as consensus has determined notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

AndreaMosaic

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software. Article is made by the creator, so conflict of interest is apparent, although in her defense she has stated that she had tried to make the article more neutral. CyberGhostface (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I contested the prod, but am glad the AfD has been raised since it might help this article. A number of references have been found, including a book that mentions how popular the software is and several how-to guides and reviews of photomosaic software that recommend it. None of the sources are great, but I would say it's just on the right side of the keep/delete boundary. COI/NPOV is a concern, but I don't think it's so bad that the article should be deleted - even if there have been some tragically unhelpful edits by various single purpose accounts. GDallimore (Talk) 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It seems to pass the wiki-sniff test with one substantive review in PC World an a couple of shorter ones. VG &#x260E; 10:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - How to create a photomosaic When someone ask how to create a mosaic then AndreaMosaic is cited as the main freeware tool for Windows OS:
 * PC World article "Make Artistic Mosaics With Your Photo" mention two sharewares and then goes on with a detailed HOW-TO using AndreaMosaic
 * PC Magazine video clip "Create a Photo Mosaic" is showing a HOW-TO for AndreaMosaic (software) and Patchworkr (online service)
 * Engadget article "How to make your own Photomosaic" is showing a HOW-TO for AndreaMosaic (Windows) and MacOsaiX (Mac OS)
 * Book "Flick Hacks" chapter "Make a Photo Mosaic" the author cite self made Perl scripts and then AndreMosaic (Windows) and MacOsaiX (Mac OS)
 * This should prove that in the small world of photomosaic software AndreaMosaic has a important place, i.e. notability.


 * Comment to Delete or not to Delete: If those references are considered "Weak" then probably we should delete many more articles on Wikipedia because they have weak references or no references at all and such deletion is IMHO not a good solution. For example looking at article Comparison of raster graphics editors there are listed around 50 software's for Image Editing with an articles for nearly each software. 30% of all those articles contain NO REFERENCE at all (other than the home page) and 14% has a reference weaker than AndreaMosaic. After I cited 3 of them in the talk page of AndreaMosaic they where added to the deletion list. Should we go to delete all of them?
 * Articles without references: Ability Photopaint, ArtRage, Photogenics, Brush Strokes Image Editor CodedColor PhotoStudio Pro cosmigo Pro Motion Mootif, mtPaint, PicMaster, PixBuilder Photo Editor, Pixia, Project Dogwaffle, Seashore_(software), Tux Paint, WinImages, Zoner Photo Studio
 * Articles with weak references: Artweaver, CinePaint, Helicon Filter, Kolourpaint, OpenCanvas, PhotoPerfect, Tux Paint
 * And those articles are just retrieved from the list of image editors. What will happen if we start to seek all other software list's or other articles?AndreaPlanet (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Can someone with a better knowledge of deletion processes suggest ways in which all of the above-mentioned articles without any references can be nominated for deletion. I prodded the first three before I got bored. Is there a better way? GDallimore (Talk) 11:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mass deletion? Does this mass deletion has really a sense? Let's give a look at the list of Windows Software on Wikipedia. Starting alphabetically we have for the first 10 software's many articles without reference/notability: 1by1 (no references), 3D Home Architect (no references), 3D Movie Maker (notable), 3D Topicscape (no references), 3D World Atlas (historical, missing references), 4NT (weak/no references), A86 (software) (weak references), ACD Canvas (notable), ACDSee (notable), ACE (editor) (no references). What happen if we review the full list, should we really go and delete so many Wikipedia articles about software?AndreaPlanet (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to move some this discussion to the talk page, but I'll reply first here so other people would know where to look. You can nominate multiple articles in a single AfD, but it's wise to do so only when there's a strong relationship between the aticle topics. A software-related example were the mascots for KDE (the result was to merge to KDE) since the mascots didn't have any inherent notability outside KDE. Nominating together a bunch of image editors from different authors/companies, even if they don't have references, is generally not acceptable and will probably be reject on procedural grounds. So, you should probably nominate them individually. Also, try to search google (including news [all dates], and books) to see if the software in question is not obviously notable. See WP:DEL and WP:BEFORE. VG &#x260E; 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the references establish the notability of the software. As for the state of ogther software articles, they are irrelevant to this discussion, and I would caution against a mass nomination for them as usually the notability of unrelated software would need to be judged on a case by case basis. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is not a blatant promotion for the software and is backed up by WP:RS. Mvjs  Talking  10:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This software should be in wikipedia. We can't make mosaics without software, and we can't talk of mosaics without talking about the software that created them. The references are pretty good: the Venice Biennale, for example, is not 'just a simple birthday party, is the Venice Biennale, very important. There are few software mosaics, this software is one of the best. If you talk about mosaics, you can and you have to talk about software. We live in the software age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.225.129 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC) — 89.15.225.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just so everyone knows, this is User:89.15.225.129's first edit on Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, CyberGhostface, excuse, I have a dynamic IP, always changes. But this is not 'an argument against the software. If you do not have arguments, do not write, please. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.225.129 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you should probably register an account, so people won't think that you are a single purpose account.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single purpose account Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time. Wikipedia articles improve not only through the hard work of regular editors but also through the often anonymous contributions of many newcomers. All of us were newcomers to editing Wikipedia at one time, and experienced editors are still newcomers, in ways, when they edit articles on topics outside their usual scope.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with the policies, standards, style, and community of Wikipedia (or of a certain topic) before they start editing. If any newcomer got all those things right, it would be by complete chance.Please DO NOT bite the newcomers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.225.129 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly 'biting' anyone...just pointing out the facts and giving good advice...if you don't want people to think that you're a SPA because your IP's constantly changing, then you should probably register an account. There are more benefits to being registered than not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2008 (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.