Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AspNetForum


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AspNetForum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable software product. Given sources are non-reliable or trivial mentions, and I have been unable to find any coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Article is by single-issue user. See also Articles for deletion/Jitbit, Articles for deletion/Jitbit Help Desk, Articles for deletion/Jitbit Macro Recorder. Haakon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete: notability not established. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete along with the rest of the articles in this group: non-notable and clearly promotional. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep how can someone judge the product as "non-notable" without even being an expert in the area? Aspnetforum is the most popular forum software for the .NET platform, period. It's well known in the ASP.NET developers community for years, and it is being recommended by the top ASP.NET bloggers. And why, for instance, the article about MegaBBS does have its right to exist (with no references to "reliable sources" at all), and Aspnetforum does not? Is this some kind of a holy war against jitbit's articles? Jazzycat (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can judge a product as non-notable by not being able to find appropriate independent coverage; there is no need to be an expert to do this. If such coverage does not exist, then the subject is non-notable and should not have encyclopedia coverage. Being popular is not sufficient. Regarding MegaBBS, please note that other stuff exists. I think somebody should nominate that article for deletion, but that does not pertain to this discussion. Haakon (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, now with the articles almost deleted, let me just explain you guys something. Some niches on the market are suitable for small software companies only (3-7 employees). These small companies never get news coverage (or academic mentions etc) like huge corporations (Microsoft or Apple etc). But Apple will never bother writing a forum-software or a macro-recorder. It's a closed loop, you see... Narrow niche products are discussed and reviewed in narrow communities. A review from a top-rated blogger (like the one mentioned in the article) is the most they can get. Does it mean that they have no right to be included in wikipedia? No - we see a lot of narrow-purpose free products listed here, but as soon as someone tries to make a living from it - bang - "this is promotion, shoot it now". Don't chase commercial software just because you hate it. Instead, ask yourself "is it worth for the users?" Jazzycat (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Free software gets deleted here all time too, for the exact same reasons. Pcap ping  20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless more sources are found. Only one review in a blog, even if it's in the blog of an opinion leader, is not enough for WP:GNG. Pcap ping  20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  added link to another blog Jazzycat (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate keep !vote.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blogs just don't do it for me (or Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources or guidelines for notability).  JBsupreme (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep c'mon folks, this forum is officially used by Microsoft-Russia and Microsoft-Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.10.120 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)  — 77.232.10.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.
 * 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.