Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FarPoint Spread


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FarPoint Spread

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

non notable software, speedy removed by SPA who has admitted COI with the software author in an edit summary Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the article to remove any non-encyclopedic content and to change it to a neutral point of view. (As I mentioned elsewhere, I used Microsoft Excel and Crystal Reports as my guides.) I didn't edit for notability, as I didn't find this page until just now, but I had already realized that the article was short of non-related and non-sales type references, and intend to begin researching such references right now. I also realized that after I turned all the comma-delimited lists of features into bulleted lists of features, the article looks kind of list-heavy. I will also try to remedy that when I learn more about the software. Thank you for your work on behalf of the project. I gain more respect for it the more I read, and will try my best to follow the guidelines. Kimnathans (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also added some external references to the article. Kimnathans (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else that could be done to improve this article? Kimnathans (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: The article relies somewhat too heavily on primary source press releases, but it does reference a number of reviews in reliable third party publications; so I think the notability of the product is sufficiently documented. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I added some book citations to the article. Would it be best to delete some of the primary source press releases? Thanks! Kimnathans (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete average product that does average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Comment The guidelines for inclusion don't include the quality of the product; only the nature of the coverage it has generated. This product has generated notice in WP:RS and therefore has met the criteria for inclusion.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - nowhere near enough coverage Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources seem to demonstrate notability; to say that there's "nowhere near enough coverage" seems a bit subjective. Angrysockhop  ( talk to me ) 09:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. The sources offered that may be independent enough do not have a broad enough readership to really confer notability.  Even if coverage in a "VSj" website or "Software Development Times" is in fact independent, those sites are addressed exclusively to software development communities and as such no more able to confer notability than your hometown newspaper.  The remaining "references" are to routine corporate announcements.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see anything in WP:N that indicates that the independent sources need to have broad readership. Software topics are going to be covered by software journals that have readership limited to software developers, in the same way that physics topics will be covered in physics journals that have limited readership (limited to physicists).  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Physics topics, though, don't raise the issues of spam, commercial conflict of interest, and product placement that software articles do. This is why more should be required. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2010 (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.