Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axialis IconWorkshop


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Discussion is a bit thin, with no recognizable consensus to delete emerging.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Axialis IconWorkshop

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


 * DELETE. This software does not appear to be notable to me.  It does have a short review on pcworld.com but I'm not too sure that's sufficient.  I'm not seeing multitudes of non-trivial coverage or anything that would suggest it meets any relevant guideline for inclusion. JBsupreme (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesnt' appear to be notable. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable application. I've added some references to the article and I'm sure there is more in paper magazines. Laurent (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * MeToo : This seems to be a me-too app, another icon editor more or less like others. The book coverage just lists it as one option. While I guess this means its existence was noted by the book author, it may make more sense to list it in an article on icon editors rather than have its own page if you want to keep it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All the sources in the article are trivial except forthis. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's a reference from a book, surely if it's in a book it's notable? That plus the PcWorld.com reference has to be enough... --Hm2k (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The book only has a very short summary of the software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The PC World review is non-trivial and that alone establishes notability. Then the book reference and the award nomination simply confirm this notability. Laurent (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The software never won the award. The book reference is a trivial mention. The article does not pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to a review from Clubic, one of the most visited websites in France, so I hope the article passes WP:N now. Laurent (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Trivial Critieria  : I've gotten into some debates over what constitutes notability of if an article is "about" the topic rather than mentions it only in passing. I think you can make this more direct by saying the secondary source coverage is non-trivial if it includes enough information about the topic to make a good article ( duh). Does it address encyclopedic attributes of the topic, for which you could fill in some details from biased or primary sources? Or, does it just state it exists and the sum total of such secondary source coverages is not enough to write a good article? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Article Updated - Based on this discussion, I've updated the article: removed trivial sources, added new sources, added new features, added info about Lite Version. Remark: I'm the author of IconWorkshop and new to Wikipedia. I hope my contribution is not against the editorial rules. Feel free to contact me. Memile (talk) 13:38, 10 August 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.