Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ColorfulTabs


 * 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. Deletion seems to be the general consensus I'm getting out of this formatting trainwreck... Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ColorfulTabs

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

No claim of notability, no external sources. (Was speedied, but recreated, so I'll go this route) Zim Zala Bim  talk  14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Note that this article is about a Firefox add-on. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir,


 * 1) Chromatabs was inspired from the idea behind ColorfulTabs. Thus the idea behind ColorfulTabs has received notable recognition.
 * 2) Here is another external and independent source (Leveraging Human Perception for Happier Tabbing https://labs.mozilla.com/2006/11/chromatabs/)?
 * 3) ColorfulTabs was featured on television on BBC World (see BBC Click archives available online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6262703.stm#6).
 * 4) ColorfulTabs has been distributed and featured in the German magazine CHIP (edition 05/2009 and 09/2007) for it's utility which has circulation of over 406,000 copies per month and over 1.63 million readers per issue.
 * 5) ColorfulTabs has been distrubuted with the German PC magazine "PC-WELT".
 * 6) Circulated with COMPUTERBILD February 2005 - Europes biggest magazine.

If the above do not substantiate the claim of notability kindly let me know what specific verifiable source/reference are you looking for? Regards, varun21 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, having a section called notability does not make you notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Notability section in the article does not refer to the Notability as described by Wikipedia. Kindly do not confuse it with Notability. Refer to the above, and also the references and external links cited within the article. Additionally I'm looking to a possible solution to this issue instead of collecting pointers to "what's wrong with the article". Suggest a possible fix instead of deletion. For example quote an article which clearly claims notability. I also saw articles on other software like Firefox. I do not see any claims of notability there.

Regards, varun21 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia".

Regards, varun21 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps there should be a section in the Firefox add-ons article about popular add-ons? If not, I vote delete. I like the extension, but it is not notable for a stand-alone article. Mr_pand [ talk | contributions ] 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarify Notability that we seek in context of this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_a_policy_or_guideline While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_not_notable "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." ... Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not
 * 1) "Notability is not objective"
 * 2) "Notability is not judged in isolation"

Regards, varun21 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Here we go;


 * Chromatabs was inspired from the idea behind ColorfulTabs. Thus the idea behind ColorfulTabs has received notable recognition. Not true, that is simply an assertion, as there are no third party sources to support the notability of either.
 * Here is another external and independent source (Leveraging Human Perception for Happier Tabbing https://labs.mozilla.com/2006/11/chromatabs/)? Again, not true. This is a firefox add-on and mozilla is the developer of firefox, so not independent. Still a primary source.
 * ColorfulTabs was featured on television on BBC World (see BBC Click archives available online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6262703.stm#6). True enough, but featuring on Click is not an achievement recognised within the software industry, it's five minutes of filler on a channel which struggles to fill 24 hours with news.
 * ColorfulTabs has been distributed and featured in the German magazine CHIP (edition 05/2009 and 09/2007) for it's utility which has circulation of over 406,000 copies per month and over 1.63 million readers per issue. I have no doubt that there a lot of happy German PC owners who read this magazine, however the circulation level of a German magazine has very little to do with this product, and while this magazine may be notable you cannot inherit its notability.
 * ColorfulTabs has been distrubuted with the German PC magazine "PC-WELT".
 * Circulated with COMPUTERBILD February 2005 - Europes biggest magazine. Again with the German publications, again they may be notable, that does not make you notable.
 * And thank you for pointing me to arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I always find it to be a fascinating and humourous read, however that page does not add to the significant third party coverage that you are missing. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I object! News 24 comfortably broadcasts 24 hours of top-quality news every day. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 22:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear the gentleman's objection but ask him to concede that Click does not equal notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. But I must protect my precious BBC. Greg Tyler <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 09:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines: Thus this article could be anything but not a deletion candidate. You can tag it for lack of notability. But deletion is not a valid course of action.
 * 2) "worthy of notice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines Given that ColorfulTabs has been noticed by the above mentioned media, it does not need additional propaganda to make it any more noticeable. It has made a difference to the world thus collectively the above the notability by above mentioned resources proves noticeability of ColorfulTabs.
 * 3) Notability is not judged in isolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not)
 * 4) Notability is not objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not)

Regards, varun21 (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you restated you arguments but added bolding, I'm fully convinced. Except that all you are doing is asserting notability by restating Wikipedia's policy. You are not actually proving notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Darrenhusted's elaborate explanation. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional notability cited: Cited notability by third-party cites CNET, PCWorld and Mashable in the article. Regards, varun21 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not additional notability, simply two more refs which do nothing more than give the personal opinion of two internet writers. "15 Must-Have Firefox Downloads" and "Best Firefox extensions" are not notable achievements but columnists making lists. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tab Mix Plus cited the same and deleted the prod tag. Two different sets of laws for these articles? Regards, varun21 (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider the notability in totality instead of claiming "nothing is enough". In case none of the sources make this notable kindly mention the sources that you accept for notability by providing their URL's or names. Regards, varun21 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep


 * 1) How has the notability been asserted?
 * 2) CNET
 * 3) PCWorld
 * 4) Mashable
 * 5) Computerworld
 * 6) BBC World
 * 7) How this makes this article notable?
 * 8) According to Reliable sources the above sources fit into one or more definitions of Reliable Sources.
 * 9) The sources are reliable (regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand - technology in the context of ColorfulTabs).
 * 10) The sources are third-party sources.
 * 11) The sources are published.
 * 12) The sources merit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_in_specific_contexts Reliability in specific contexts.
 * 13) BBC is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources.
 * 14) Computerworld is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources.
 * 15) The topic has received significant coverage in the above mentioned reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
 * 16) The topic quotes all secondary sources.
 * 17) The topic quotes third-party and reliable sources which are independent ot the subject being covered.
 * 18) The sources are independent of the subject.
 * 19) http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22colorful+tabs%22+OR+%2Bcolorfultabs 99 news articles.

Regards, varun21 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - d/l stats cited are significant. Inclusion in a significant number of independently published must-have lists seem to speak to WP:N.  Note, though that user:varun21 apparently continues to WP:POINT after being asked not to do so by admin user:ZimZalaBim. Paleking (talk) 17:30, 19 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.