Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantis Word Processor (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Atlantis Word Processor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A shareware word processor written by a small group of people not a company of any significance, with no indication of actual significance. I can't find any evidence it's considered important, or ever was. Almost entirely the work of user: Marius2~enwiki, who has never edited on any other topic, and maintained by others with a similarly narrow focus. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * keep The three reviews in the article aren't lengthy, a few paragraphs each, but are certainly reviews in reliable, independent sources. Not sure if  is fully indpendent (or really all that in depth) but it is long. I think WP:N is met with the three reviews in the article, but the other one shows there is more out there too.  Hobit (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Hobit. Modernponderer (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per the additional sources User:Gillian2008 provided below. Modernponderer (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not overly impressed by the reviews, these seem to be software download sites who'll list everything submitted to them and give a brief review of a good many of them, i.e. these aren't really much better than a directory listing. Are there any better out there? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability. A handful of reviews from nine years ago do not establish significance. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N is exactly an assertion of notability. This has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources.  The fact they are nine years old really doesn't matter (notability isn't temporary). Hobit (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You show me a software product that had a handful of reviews nine years ago and nothing written about it since, and those reviews serve to say "it exists, try it", I'll tell you that it wasn't notable then and isn't notable now. None of the reviews constitute in-depth or significant coverage. That a perfunctory AfD from nine years ago got it wrong doesn't change that. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep the reviews are quite short and it's impossible to tell whether they've gone through any sort of editorial review, especially the CNet ones. I'm willing to give a benefit of the doubt to the PC World one, but it's not enough. I also saw the telenet post and it doesn't appear to be a reliable source for notability reasons - just a personal blog. As it stands, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  02:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC) EDIT: the new sources get this past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the teleread.org source I linked to? It certainly appears to be a reliable source.  The article had been previously published as a blog post, but I don't think that's an issue.  If the NYT republishes someone's blog post, it's still a NYT article, yes? Hobit (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found Teleread independently (and then got its name wrong). I didn't even notice it was originally from someone else's blog, but I don't think Teleread is a reliable source for notability purposes - it's a WP:BLOG that openly welcomes contributors. The Cnet review, PC World review, and Tucows review all say "download this now!" as part of their downloads section and not as part of their reviews section, which really concerns me from a WP:RS point of view - I'd certainly be more impressed with a review in the actual PC World magazine. SportingFlyer  talk  10:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd not characterize that as a blog as it certainly appears to have editorial control even if the workforce is all unpaid.  Hobit (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still self-published, which can't be used for notability per Identifying and using self-published works. The fact it was reprinted what appears to be verbatim from something clearly self-published here doesn't qualify that source, in my opinion. SportingFlyer  talk  13:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to disagree on that per my NYT comment above. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your example above seems rather naive. If the NYT reproduces someones blog verbatim and puts a disclaimer on it saying they haven't checked it and bear no responsibility for the content, would you contend it's still an NYT article and so we should treat it in the same way as other NYT articles? Not that is the exact case here, but surely the point is you respect NYT articles because of the trust you put in their checking etc. if the NYT stopped that and just started reproducing user submissions etc. it may still be an NYT article, but you'd probably stop respecting the quality of them. In this case the publishing guidelines contemporary to when that article was published do suggest some level of editing of submitted content, but seem primarily interested in writing style etc. this probably brings at least a reasonable question as to how reliable it is as a source overall. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the NYT does this all the time. OpEds are exactly this. So are newswire articles.  We assume the Times used their editorial judgement in selecting those articles.  Same with "selections from a book" which also commonly appear in the NYT (and WSJ, etc.).  That something was published elsewhere first doesn't take away from it being published in the NYT. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At the time (probably now too), Teleread was a self-published blog which accepted contributions from other self-publishers. I have no problem keeping the source in the article but you cannot use it to demonstrate notability, sorry. SportingFlyer  talk  21:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the NYT publish other peoples stuff with no checking and bearing no responsibility for content, then the fact that it appears in the NYT should mean absolutely nothing to us, we should look to the originator for their reputation for fact checking etc. It's the very fact that we believe NYT do some checking and do stand by the content which is what gives them a good reputation and makes us value them as a source. The contrast here is not the NYT it's a blog whose controls at the time are indicated by them to be they checked the articles not for content (beyond being in the field they were interested in), but for writing style. That's not a good standard to use. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing I'm missing something. This website appears to have both a long history and fairly large editorial group. Do they disclaim responsibility for their contributors somewhere?  From what I can tell it appears to have editorial control.   Hobit (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment It's relevant to list this article's recent appearance at Deletion Review here: Deletion_review/Log/2018_October_13. -  t u coxn \talk 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete We have never decided whether "review" means full-scale review, or the sort of brief notices that are used here. This has been a question in multiple fields.  (TheEPUB one isn't even a brief notice--it's a mere listing by any standard).  There is probably no commercial word processing program at all that has not gotten reviews to the extent of the present ones. The question is not editorial control, but rather the publication's decision to be indiscriminate.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment (mainly to JzG) Most software products are developed by "small groups of people". There are even many popular products developed by individuals (Sigil, Calibre, Notepad++). The English WP includes articles about almost 100 word processors. Many of them have less reviews than Atlantis Word Processor. Some of them don't have a single review. Many of them include links to non-English reviews. In general, you will hardly find in-depth reviews for non-top-end software. So what do you expect from the Atlantis Word Processor article? To me, this is a selective judgment and lack of consistency in applying the deletion criteria. I've just spent 5 minutes on Googling to find more reviews and notable articles on Atlantis Word Processor:    . I would find more if I searched the Web Archive. There are also non-English reviews:        Gillian2008 (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but I can understand people thinking the references are too slight to support an article or that the text is (or at least used to be) tainted by conflict of interest. In my view the reviews meet the GNG criteria because they are sufficient in number, detail and independence. However, meeting the criteria only "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article" and so adopting more stringent requirements is perfectly allowable to keep our contents reduced to manageable amounts. However, in this case I think the article is an overall asset and the guidelines as written support such an assessment. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A handful of reviews at time of issue and nothing since? Surely if this software was in any way notable it would have attracted subsequent attention.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reviews on the Web. Please see my comment above. Gillian2008 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have added 6 new review links to the article, but JzG removed them all. Gillian2008 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Gillian2008, please post any additional sources you find here so the community can evaluate them. It seems rather pointless to spend time and effort editing an article that may well end up deleted within days, whether citations are being removed or not. Modernponderer (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will. At this point, the article includes links to 5 reviews. There are 12 more in my comment above . I'm adding another 6:     . So, 20+ reviews in total. I wonder how much is enough for notability? Gillian2008 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To a certain extent that's what we're figuring out. As a closing reviewer (I relisted because there's no current consensus, but it seems reasonably probable that consensus can be achieved) I would consider the following:  On one hand NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY so it doesn't matter if all the reviews are old, but on the other hand if it only received reviews immediately after release, perhaps ONE EVENT may come into play.  Getting a roomful of wikipedia editors to agree on what constitutes depth of coverage can an entertaining proposition.  Obviously the more you can provide the better, but adding a number of passing mentions isn't going to help your position.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:78.26, one would really hope your link to WP:1E was just an oversight on your part, as otherwise it would call similarly contentious closes into question. The full and "correct" link is WP:BIO1E – as the "one event" criterion only applies to people. See also: WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED Modernponderer (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, and thank you for the prescient clarification. Yes, WP:BIO1E only applies to people on a strict basis, but when determining notability the principle can apply when considering whether this is worthy of encyclopedic attention.  I'm failing to see the applicability of WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED, because we are indeed talking about the "actions" of sources, not their inaction.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:78.26, this software is developed since 2000. So it's normal that some of those reviews are "old". But there are "new" reviews and articles as well: 2018 (2), 2016 (1), 2015 (5), 2014 (2), 2012 (1), 2010 (1), 2009 (4), 2008 (3), 2007 (2), 2005 (1) – see my links above. Gillian2008 (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The latest article is by ZDNet (Oct 2018). If the software was unimportant for the industry, Cisco wouldn't invest time in reverse engineering it. Gillian2008 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that latest coverage is pretty in-depth. Not positive, but in-depth. Well over WP:N now IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Most the links above don't sell me, but the Softpedia review from 2005 and the 2018 ZDNet article show the program is not some flash in the pan (or a never-flash). I cant analyze the foreign language reviews for reliability, but it does seem to be geographically widespread.  Passes GNG in any case.  Some reviews should be better noted in the article, showing program strength and weaknesses, currently it appears spammy because the article just says "here's this product and here's what it does".   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Another fresh review (Oct 26, 2018): . Gillian2008 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2018 (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.