Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filecamp


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Filecamp

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Constested PROD. Concern: Non-notable software product. Mostly promotional. Eeekster (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

with it! (Vagn30 (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)) — Vagn30 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I didn't remove the prod, because I wanted to discuss the nomination and wanted to see if I could address the issues. When nobody answered I removed it and asked for feedback if there still where issues. It is frustrating using a lot of time and energy and then somebody wants to delete my work without any discussion. I feel this deletion isn't really based on knowledge about the software but is more of a routine exercise. I don't understand why this has been nominated for deletion. The reason why I added it was because there are other services of the same size and notability, and I am an app fanatic. If this has to be deleted, then there a lot of other services that needs to be removed. Also don't understand why it has been marked as mostly promotion, since I've used the Picasa post as template and tried using the same tone, so that wouldn't happen. And since I didn't get paid to make this, I'm surprised by this comment. I almost feel like I am being bullied, and if this is how wikipedia works, I am done

question about what counts as a reliable source, feel free to ask the people at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. When in doubt, it's better to ask and to know then to fill up an article with unreliable and/or primary sources, then get upset if someone nominates it for AfD. Also, don't take AfDs personally. While there are some nominations that are done in bad faith, 99.9% of the nominations are done because the nominator does not believe the subject matter passes guidelines. Whether or not Filecamp meets guidelines is for the discussion here to decide. I'll be honest and say that stomping your feet and saying "I'll leave if you don't keep my article" (or some variation thereof) is not the way to get things done around here or to keep an article. Trust me, I'm ashamed to say that I've done that before and luckily I saw how silly I was acting and rather than sit in a huff, worked to keep the articles I wanted around. There are people who are willing to help you as far as looking for sources and seeing whether or not anything needs to be added or changed. Some will even edit an article they know is pretty much doomed, all in the hopes that it might help keep it. (Not all of us are deletionists by choice, sometimes it's just inevitable.) If you absolutely think that this AfD is done in bad faith, feel free to bring it up to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but be aware that you will have to be a lot more calm when presenting the case and bring evidence to show that the nomination was done in bad faith. (To be honest, that's energy that'd really be better spent finding sources for the article.) I am going to search, but I'll warn you that I can't guarantee that I'll vote to keep.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 2.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  09:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Using the argument that "other stuff exists that should be deleted so this article should stay" (otherwise known as WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) is not a viable argument. Not every app passes notability guidelines and if you feel that other apps do not pass WP:GNG, then feel free to propose them for deletion or bring them to AfD. (BTW, PROD posts are to stay up for 7 days and should only be removed if you have addressed the issues brought up, not because nobody has posted an answer to a question.) While I haven't personally made a decision yet, I can see that one of the biggest issues with the page is that all of the sources on the article are primary, meaning that they come from the company itself. Primary sources do not show notability and really can only be used if you have multiple independent and reliable sources to back up the claims. (WP:RS) The guidelines for what is considered to be a reliable source can be strict in and of itself, so if you ever have a
 * Comment: Also, please do not remove the deletion tags from the page. While you can remove the PROD tags, you cannot remove the AfD tags until the discussion has run its course, which is usually about 7-14 days. The article will not be removed until a consensus has been reached to delete it. The only times a page is deleted early is if there's an overwhelming amount of delete votes that make good arguments for the page's deletion or if it were to qualify for a speedy deletion category.(WP:SNOW, WP:SPEEDY)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete No indication of wP;notability. Of the seven references, 6 are to the website of the company selling the product, the seventh is to an entire magazine, no practical way to see if that has something relevant to wp:notability.      Vagn30, to argue for keeping you need to argue how it meets wp:notability, not that there are other articles in the same situation.   Or, more to the point, add references to substantial independent coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing here to show notability and all I found on the internet were primary sources, posts on other blogs and websites by Vagn30 promoting the website, and various junk sites that mirror whatever search term you enter into the search field.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another web-based file sharing, lightweight digital asset management and online proofing tool using our servers to distribute advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning Delete - This source in the article is in Danish (which I'm not fluent in): De Grafiske Fag. The source is an entire magazine. The page number for the article is too small to be legible on my browser, but the article's title is "Nettet klarer filerne". Clicking on the search icon on the page (in the lower left-hand corner, magnifying glass icon) and typing in "Filecamp" goes directly to the article page.


 * This source in the article is also in Danish, but appears to be a very short article with a passing mention, and the reliability of the source website itself may be questionable: Stillinger Tagged ‘Filecamp’. Perhaps someone who speaks Danish could check these out? I searched online, but didn't find coverage in reliable sources for Filecamp. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. Don't think I have anything to add. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2012 (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.