Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernic Desktop Search


 * 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. Merging can be dealt with on the talk page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Copernic Desktop Search

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

No third party reliable sources, no evidence of notability. WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy". That is clearly not the case here. B (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING RUL3R *flaming 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - advertising! Jeni  ( talk ) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It describes what it is, what it can and what it cannot do. Isn't that what a Wikipedia article is about? Paul-Michel (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While those may be three components of a Wikipedia article, not every topic is appropriate for inclusion. Wikipedia only includes topics for which there are reliable sources of information, external to the subject.  In other words, does someone out there other than the company that made the product care enough to write an article about it?  We also don't normally have articles about individual products unless there is so much to say that including them in the article about the company itself would make that article unreasonably large.  For example, there is a lot to say about Microsoft and its various products that if we tried to cram it all into one article, there would be too much.  But in this case, the company's article &mdash; Copernic &mdash; is not all that large and anything that really needs to be said about this product can be said there. --B (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, I was planning on making descriptions of most of Copernic's products, it may not be enough for it's own page for now, but it'll probably be. For the sources, I thought the company's site was reliable enough, but there a millions of articles on this products all over the web, I'll include other sources if it's only that. Cheers Paul-Michel (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Competing products from Google and Microsoft are extensively covered in wikipedia, so is also the open source beagle product. Wikipedia should have space for products form smaller companies when they receive good reviews. --Fredrik Orderud (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google and Microsoft are large companies with large articles and a whole slew of major products. Category:Google has 112 articles and Category:Microsoft has 97 articles, as well as 24 sub-categories and their articles.  If we were to attempt to cover all of their products in the main articles, they would be a gigabyte in size.  WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy".  Google and Microsoft meet that test.  Copernic does not. --B (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles on Google and Microsoft were not written in the form of advertising by, respectively, Larry Page or Sergei Brin and Bill Gates. The issue isn't whether software of a given type deserves to have an article about it. The issue is whether the article was written as an objective article on a notable product based on third-party reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion requested. The article is unquestionably advertising, and was evidently written by the company's web marketing agent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not written this article, Speed deletion request was removed by Largo Plazo Paul-Michel (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's correct. That was my mistake. I've removed my speedy request, and I'm striking out my Delete vote and my other comment above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of authorship, the point of G11 is that we are going to speedy delete press releases, advertisements, and resumes. This article is none of those. --B (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: see also Articles for deletion/Copernic Agent --B (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge this article into the company's article, this doesn't seem like it needs it's own article. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I wonder if I'm the first person in this deletion discussion to try to find sources? But this software has a staggering 542 Google News hits. 542! Out of those 542 hits there is more than enough to show notability. A good number of them are going to be press releases, but you have PC World, CNET News, CNNMoney, PC Magazine, FOXBusiness, CBS News, InfoWorld, Washington Post, InformationWeek... How could you consider the software not notable for a lack of sources? --  At am a chat 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of those 542 are software comparisons and plain advertising. -- RUL3R *flaming 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES!--Otterathome (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - True, true, now that I read more into them they are. Hmm, I'm rethinking my suggestion here now that I get into these. I thought there had to be something of value in there, but really I haven't found a single source of in-depth coverage out of those hundreds of hits. Looks like Copernic has some incredibly busy marketers (Paul-Michel among them I guess). I think I'll change my vote to merge after more consideration. --  At am a chat 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, merge seems a better choice. -- RUL3R *flaming 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are multiple articles and reviews about this desktop search software. I believe this is in Czech but with machine translation, it's very clear this is an article solely about the product and is a product test and review.  There is this PC World review which includes a download link, but the review is editorial content from PC World staff and not a user review or press release copy.  There is this VUnet review specifically about this software.  Small Business Computing has written an article about it.  So has the Bangkok Post.  As has ZDNet.  And this is just a the first few results from a Google News search.  Yes, there are press releases and other stuff in the results, but these examples are sufficient to establish notability, and based on this sample, there are very likely more articles about the software if a more concerted effort is undertaken. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - The PC World and VUnet "reviews" aren't reviews; they are brief blurbs about the software, the same kinds of blurbs written about any piece of software available for download. It's the same coverage that you'd see for every non-notable piece of shareware or freeware you'd download at a place like that (Cnet/Download.com has those same kinds of "reviews"). The ZDNet review is a bit better, but marginally so. The Small Business Computing article is fishy, I'm not sure if that's a legitimate news source or not. The Bangkok Post article I admit is pretty thorough and reliable, and it didn't show up for me when I did my search. I'm not convinced it should be kept but this definitely strengthens the argument that it should be. --  At am a chat 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply But is it a long enough topic to deserve an article of it's own? Can it be sourced enough? --> RUL3R *flaming 22:03, 4 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.