Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeskProto (The Non-Machinist's Cam)


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

DeskProto (The Non-Machinist's Cam)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:ADMASQ, fails WP:NCORP, sourced to PR pieces, press releases, and primary sources. Disputed draftification, more than once! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has now been move to DeskProto after the opening of the AfD. I doubt this is against policy, this comment is just to make folk aware 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fiddle Faddle, I usually move pages back when this happens. When the title of an AFD is actually a redirect, it really complicates both relisting discussions and closing them. It's like you have to do everything twice, first to the listed title and then again to the new title so I discourage editors from moving pages around until an AFD is closed. It's just an unnecessary distraction because if an article is Kept, then editors can move it to whatever new title is decided upon via a discussion on the article talk page. It's not like changing the title of an article that is subject to a deletion discussion is going to change whatever decision is arrived at here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Liz I have taken your advice over custom and practice (as I interpret it) and moved it back to the title it was at when I sent it to AfD. I don't propose to get into a move war over it should it be moved elsewhere. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG (little independent/secondary coverage) and reads as promotional to me. I'm also skeptical of the author's claim of no COI based on language used, the original article title having the product slogan in it, and the download link in article body. Uhai (talk &middot; contribs) 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Uhai,
 * -"... and reads as promotional to me." - SHOW US - exactly which statements appear promotional to you? Don't just make your mouth go - provide adequate and justifiable visible proof. Show us a better way of issuing the statements to which you object to - lead by positive example not by negative criticism.
 * -" I'm also skeptical of the author's claim of no COI..." - PROVE IT - go find proof that I am benefiting from adding this article to Wikipedia. Truth be told, the opposite is fact. Uhai - just because you think something is not ok does not make it so. Display tangible evidence or stfu. No one appreciates being accused of wrong doing without proof!
 * - Finally - Uhai, you being a "Master of Science" - perhaps you could provide some constructive criticism by example - you know - to try and improve this article as opposed to destroying it by hearsay, innuendo and an indiscriminate reference to COI. DpProxyMan (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * DpProxyMan, you need to read Articles for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire tone reads like a brochure, but here's a couple examples:
 * an introductory level cam application - available at no charge via website download. with an in-line external link to the download.
 * The following is a general summary of desirable features applicable to DeskProto
 * As far as COI goes, how did you locate the declined draft and copy it into your own userspace here. You disclosed you were in contact with the original author here who disclosed their COI here, so it's clear you have a COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reads like an advertisement. I have not reviewed the references because the article has been reference-bombed, largely with unreliable references including Wikipedia and Deskproto and YouTube.  The article was tendentiously moved to article space after draftification, presumably because the author either doesn't want to wait or doesn't expect to pass GNG.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Liz or anyone else - That is one of the reasons why I still think that the AFD template should say not to move the article while the AFD is in progress. A few experienced editors say that it is important to be able to move the article during the AFD in case the title is wrong and the change of title cannot wait until the AFD is complete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon would you mind also signing your AfD opinion, above, please. While it is possible to see that it is yours from history, making it clear will assist the closing admin 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- Oops. I was distracted by something, maybe by disputed drafts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As already noted, the article is clearly promotional, and fails to show the level of in-depth independent coverage required. And the article creator clearly needs to read Reliable sources, since padding a reference list with citations to Wikipedia itself won't impress anyone remotely familiar with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've been watching this since the first COI user wrote the draft, then a second user showed up and copied it to their sandbox. My own searching did not show sourcing sufficient to demonstrate notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:DpProxyMan - Bludgeoning an AFD has at least two problems. It is usually ignored by the closer, but it is also an indication of a losing case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2022 (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.