Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exif Harvester


 * 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 as unsourced. Despite the pleas from the many new users the request to provide reliable third-party sources that establish the notability of this product remains unanswered. Keep in mind blog posts and articles on Wikipedia mirrors (Answer.com) are not considered reliable sources. To restore this article, I recommend finding such sources, for instance by using a news search engine such as Google News, Lexis-Nexis or Newsbank. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exif Harvester

 * — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V, nothing to write an article from except the company's website. Recury 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I verified the content by downloading the software and testing it - so it's verifiable. But some quick poking around on my part found two more sources, plus I'll try to find more.  However, I'd like to point out that, so far as I can tell, the company's web site isn't selling anything ( it looks more like a hobbiest site ) and that this is freeware.  I'm not sure what harm there is in having this article here, but Wikipedia's own pledge drive ( which I'll be donating to on payday ) says Imagine a world in which every single person can share freely in the sum of human knowledge ... Donate today!  This article is most certainly a part of "the sum of human knowledge."  DigitalEnthusiast 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to have reliable, third-party sources to write an article from; just downloading it and saying "yeah, it's that" isn't good enough. Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. Recury 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Being freely downloadable by anyone with an internet connection does make it verifiable, as per the scientific method. And if Wikipedia defines its mission as freely sharing "in the sum of human knowledge" when it needs money, there's no reason to go deleting useful human knowledge from Wikipedia.  In any case, please hang on for a few days, and I'll either find third-party sources, or concede that they don't exist if I can't find any.  DigitalEnthusiast 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use the dictionary definition of "verifiable" for its verifiability policy. It also does not aim to collect the sum of all human knowledge. Your being pedantic about language isn't doing your case any good. Find some third-party, reliable sources, ensure it meets WP:SOFTWARE or it's going to get deleted. Recury 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be pedantic or argue - I'm just explaining my reasoning here. It's news to me that Wikipedia doesn't use the dictionary definition of verifiable, with all the different templates, guidlines, and everything else, there' sa lot to learn and I would have thought that was a pretty safe assumption.  Please don't be so rude, and assume good faith.  DigitalEnthusiast 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

keep - if this is a borderline case, I think the usefulness of the program is enough to make it notable, and forrest gump obviously has a long history of working to benefit wikipedia. More to the point, if the bloggers are starting to pay attention to a new software tool, it's only a matter of weeks before the major photography web sites begin to review it. Now I use this app every day and I'm starting to see the pattern for how my f number changes focus. It would be a real shame if good information was taken down. 71.216.188.164 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I use this program every day since I learned about it in my local/Seattle photography club. A lot of us use it, and it comes up at almost every Q&A. 24.22.182.212

Keep - I use this to figure out why some of my pictures work and some don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.226.247 (talk • contribs).


 * Weak delete per nom. Dar-Ape 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The software exists, it's free, and I use it for all my digital pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.106.26.120 (talk • contribs).

Keep - Why delete an article about a great little free program? It's helping me learn how to use my camera better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.227.29 (talk • contribs).

Please keep - my fledgling company built a product around the output for this program. We see a niche for digital photographers who could benefit from OLAP and other types of visualization technology, but aren't experts in IT. This page ( http://catalysticsoftware.com/Products.aspx ) really isn't ready to be viewed by the public, but it shows our intent to help the public use Mr Croce's software. FireWeed 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Note: user's first edit

Keep - It's free software, folks are happy, so why delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.154.89 (talk • contribs).

Strong keep That "Fireweed" has written software that parses the xml Exif Harvester produces, and that it's being picked up by the bloggers ( http://seattletourist.blogspot.com/ ) make this verifiable, although I hope Fireweed's software is free to the end user, as well. Also, the program has more than 1,200 users ( or at least has been downloaded this many times ), some of whom are obviously happy with it. Finally, the software is in existence, well liked, and fills an important gap in the digital photographer's workflow. Please have a look at my contributions here and you'll see I understand digital photography. I've donated all the photos on Tioga Pass, Woodland Park Zoo, Duotone, Yankee Boy Basin, and most of Golden Gardens Park, Red-winged Blackbird, Iron Horse State Park and many more. Exif Harvester plays an important role in my workflow, even with these images - that's why I took the time to write it. ForrestCroce 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Keep - The software is free, and I use it for my digital photos.131.142.144.107 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "That "Fireweed" has written software that parses the xml Exif Harvester produces, and that it's being picked up by the bloggers ( http://seattletourist.blogspot.com/ ) make this verifiable." Sorry, it doesn't. Recury 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Found out about this on photo.net, and came to Wikipedia to find out more. I'm saddened to learn that someone wants to delete a good source of information like this. I always come to Wikipedia to learn more - it's where I start any kind of learning I want to do, then I branch out from there. And I can't see any reason but spite to take down an article that's useful to a lot of people. I started using the "Exif Harvester" program and it's the easiest thing I can find to shrink my pictures down so they'll fit in an email, but I can see how I'll also learn about how the manual modes work if I put in the time with this program. Plus, the program has a lot of users, who seem happy and vocal, both here and on photo.net. 71.216.188.161 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

keep - For weeks I've been trying to figure out how to parse a exif jpeg with VBA for an Access database. Knowing that this software exists saves me an awful lot of hard work. But more generally, this is an very notable article about an important concept in digital life, filling a gap we face with digital cameras. I'm glad/lucky I found out in time. Knowledge in an encyclopedia shouldn't have an expiration date, though - it would be a disservice to wikipedia's readers to delete this article. 62.189.83.4 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Another Keep I've been using this for a month and a half. Came to Wikipedia to learn about it then, the article has improved since then, and I bet it'll continue getting better over time.  But there are an awful lot of us users, especially for an application that's farely new.  Leave the article, let it continue to mature, and let knowledge be available for free.  Cult Of Personality 19:27, 21 December 2006 (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.