Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete Skype History (software)


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete Skype History (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; the closest thing to outside reference I find is a partial sentence in a two-paragraph article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision of the page: Delete Skype History (software)
Seanwud (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Hi Ahecht, today you marked my first wiki page Delete_Skype_History_(software) for deletion. As far as I understand the reason is that it contained references to the program web-site. I've removed the reference in the article body. Is it Ok now or I should review something in addiotion? PAGE ]] ) 18:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) PAGE ]] ) 20:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the reason it was nominated. See Articles for deletion/Delete Skype History (software) for more information. Your article didn't establish the notability of the software, which must be done by providing references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. —Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Thanks for pointing me to the real reason. I've created the article as the programs have a big number of thankful users who want to recommend the applications to others. I've reviewed similar articles at Wikipedia and don't fully understand why you consider our software is less notable. The programs offer unique features (that no other software does) and, in deed and not in name, sometimes save our customers in very delicate situations. Probably you haven't found many relaible external references as the program name contains normal English words and there are many discussions on Internet using these words. Independent software reviews have been published on industry-influencing web-sites, e.g., and we expect several others soon. Therefore I want to ask you to leave the article for a couple of weeks and then reevaluate the software significance. - Seanwud (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Softpedia is not an independent source, it's user-generated content, as they simply publish whatever the submitter of the software writes (I know, I have my own software published there). Your article needs to show what other people are saying about your software, not what the software publisher says about it. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * In general, you are right about submitter's content at softpedia. But I would never point you to such article if I said the independent editor (Mihaela Citea) wrote the review. And be sure we didn't request the overview. Examples of our descriptions are and . If you like, I will collect a list of independent overviews for your convenience. And if the programs help users to resolve their particular needs, i.e., protect their privacy, why don't give the uses a chance to read the article (written in a neutral language without any promotion voice) and supplement it with their opinions? Seanwud (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The quality of the features is actually not relevant to whether it gets included in Wikipedia; this is not software review or recommendation website. This article is not being compared to other articles on this website that you may be reviewing; I can guarantee you that there are articles here that do not live up to our standards, and we will not be ignoring this one simply because we haven't gotten to those yet. If you wish to see Wikipedia standards rewritten so that they do not include notability, well, the Articles For Deletion page of an article for a product you wish to promote is not an effective place to be doing that. Changing a guideline like that would require the participation of the larger community, not the mere discussion of the few editors on a single AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nat, for your opinion and clarification. I like Wikipedia as is and don't want to change its fundamental rules (nice that you've mentioned that option) . For better understanding, we've found a unique solution and this helps lots of people. I'd like to think the article isn't promotional but rather should show the solution to other people. If the programs have 5-10 independent reviews more, would you consider it notable enough? - Seanwud (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeking to show your solution to people is pretty much the definition of promotional (and, I should note, Wikipedia would actually make a very poor method for doing so; it's not the sort of thing people seem to come to an encyclopedia for, they're unlikely to type the name of your software into the Wikipedia search field, and if they type the name of your product into Google, wouldn't you rather they be steered to some place where they can actually get the product?) But no, 5-10 more independent reviews wouldn't meet what we traditionally look for if they are user-generated reviews rather than coming from respected/significant edited/curated sites. (This isn't just a software thing; in books, dozens of reviews of Goodreads is not as meaningful as one in the New York Times Book Review.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Softpedia, with a 'buy now' link on the review page, cannot be considered independent. A search turned up no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2014 (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.