Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireCMD (2nd nomination)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

FireCMD
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was recreated in substantially the same form with substantially the same motley mix of primary sources, unreliable blogs and on-line catalogs as was offered last time when the outcome at AfD was delete. My request for speedy deletion was contested. Okay, we're back to AfD again. Msnicki (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * delete (there is no new information, at least one of the non-reviews is a dead link) TEDickey (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * keep http://firecmd.findmysoft.com/ and http://jpsoft.com/blogs/2013/05/windows-console-replacements-part-7-take-command-and-firecmd/ are publications with clear editorial oversight. 49.213.33.110 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — 49.213.33.110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep Sources have editorial integrity and are independent of the subject. Subject was quite notable when searched on Google. Editors: Jerome Johnston (findmysoft) and Rex Conn (jpsoft.com). Rex Conn is a developer of 4DOS and is an expert in the field of the subject. SmackoVector (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if Rex Conn is writing it, it's still a personal blog. The only editorial control is whatever he wants. Msnicki (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not a personal blog. Its Jp Software Company's blog. Weblog material written by professionals writing within their field are acceptable. SmackoVector (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rex Conn basically is JP Software. Msnicki (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if he is the only person running the company, it doesn't make any difference as he is a professional researcher and developer in this field. It can be clearly seen by reading the reviews that they are not quickly generated or user submitted content unlike some cheap download directory review. It clearly seems that editors have used the product before writing the review. They have mentioned both the pros and cons about the product. These points clearly suggests editorial oversight. SmackoVector (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oof. I just read that Rex Conn blog item.  There's a bit of my life I will never get back.  Did you read this thing?  If you really can't make it through the whole thing, at least take a look near the bottom where he's a got a chart comparing his own Take Command product to FireCMD, concluding, "Summary: FireCMD in its current form doesn’t offer any significant advantages over the other Windows console replacements I’ve reviewed in parts 1 – 6, and it only has a tiny fraction of the features available in Take Command."  This isn't reliable and independent reporting.  He has a sales motive that has nothing to do with taking note of FireCMD.  He's just writing hit pieces on every competitor he can find.  Msnicki (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. You are right. He clearly has a sales motive and the review is also more negative (obviously no one will write great things about competitor's product). But still it is notable as competitor's review is not a primary source. His reviews and articles are already used as sources on Wikipedia (at least I have found couple of articles). If this was the only source supporting the article, I would have definitely changed my vote to "delete" but still there is an another source (findmysoft) which makes me to stick on my decision. SmackoVector (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is one thing to cite a blog item as a source for a claim in an article here on Wikipedia. That's allowed.  It is something else to claim notability based on a blog item.  That's not allowed because notability requires WP:RELIABLE sources.  Findmysoft.com is a catalog site.  From their About us page, "FindMySoft is one of the largest software download directories with more than 150.000 software titles".  They "review" anything they can, just to bump their count.  This is exactly what was offered last time.  Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * findmysoft.com does not review anything they can. Like CNET they only review selected software that meets their quality criteria and they just place publisher's description for lesser known software. CNET is a bigger software directory than findmysoft.com . That doesn't make it unreliable. findmysoft.com is certainly a reliable source. SmackoVector (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * findmysoft.com is NOT like CNET. CNET is a genuinely respected and notable source and we have an article on them.  They're owned by CBS Corporation, an organization with a reputation for reliable reporting that stretches back to names like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.  We do not have an article on findmysoft.  Another difference is that because CNET isn't primarily a catalog site, their standards are higher.  findmysoft may have a "review" of FireCMD, but CNET does not.  Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What if findmysoft.com does not have an article? 90% of the sources used all over Wikipedia don't have a Wikipedia page. CNET has included FireCMD in their directory : http://download.cnet.com/FireCMD/3000-2094_4-75910134.html . Not an editor review, but they have found it notable enough to include in their respected and reputed directory. And I don't understand why you have given the search type as searchtype=news! Check this: http://news.cnet.com/1770-5_3-0.html?query=firecmd . Rex Conn has found it notable enough (even if his intention is sales of his product). findmysoft.com has found it notable enough. Findmysoft is also not just a catalog site like CNET: Check this: http://www.findmysoft.com/news/. Its an editorial review and not mere publisher's description. Jerome Johnston has graduated from the Computer Science Faculty and he learned a lot about programming and Information Technology. So he is not just an another content writer paid to quickly generate crap content. Its a genuine review and there is no doubt about its reliability. SmackoVector (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Doubtful: Jerome Johnston's self-written page on findmysoft has the appearance of a person lacking any academic credentials (perhaps a high school student - that's the kindest interpretation that can be made from the material). TEDickey (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems you're having difficulty parsing the author info. Academic credentials are clearly mentioned as graduation from the Computer Science Faculty. Link: http://www.findmysoft.com/author/Jerome-Johnston/ SmackoVector (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course I read it. Nothing there worth discussing.  Start with | google to understand why there's nothing to discuss. TEDickey (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was about to make the same point, but you beat me to it. What the heck is the "Computer Science Faculty"?  I don't think this individual has any credentials at all.  It's impossible to verify the school he says he went to even exists.  I suspect by now that SmackoVector has to know this "review" and the Conn blog item are WP:QUESTIONABLE sources for good reasons that match the guidelines but that, as a matter of pride, he's unable to admit a mistake, strike through his !vote and change it.  (Once wrong, stay wrong!)  SmackoVector, I can see you're new to WP, but when the evidence says you're wrong, you need to be able to get over it.  (I change my !votes all the time when new sources or better arguments are offered.)  Msnicki (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I found too many "Computer Science Faculty" when I searched on Google. He must have graduated from any one of them. We are not here to discuss biography of Jerome Johnston. There is no reason or evidence to consider this as WP:UNRELIABLE. This is not the matter of pride for me but for you Msnicki. You seem desperate to win the discussion or delete FireCMD by any way. But I will assume good faith. Sources are not primary sources and are independent of the subject. There is clear Editorial oversight. findmysoft sources are used all over the place. Even on pages as important as Java_version_history. SmackoVector (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You know that he must have graduated from somewhere because he says so on the internet?


 * Re: sourcing, we make a distinction on Wikipedia between deciding whether to have an article and what it should say. Here at AfD, the only question is WP:Notability, where the standard is that you need multiple reliable independent secondary sources.  Each of those words has a more technical definition here than in everyday conversation.  For example, it's not enough that a source seems reliable, but that, from WP:RELIABLE, it must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  It doesn't appear to me that findmysoft even bothered to fact-check where their writer went to school.  They certainly don't have any reputation we can point to.  At best, all you're offering is your assurance that it looks good to you.  And that's just not enough to clear the bar as a reliable independent secondary source at AfD.


 * But that doesn't mean that WP:PRIMARY or WP:QUESTIONABLE sources can never be used. Of course they can, exactly as you found in the Java article.  But note that it wasn't used to establish notability of the subject, only to establish that Sun Java 6 Update 11 was probably released on Dec 3, 2008, apparently only because Oracle failed to give a date on their official release notes page for that update.  Was findmysoft a good enough source for that purpose?  Well, who cares.  I can't imagine arguing that one, since the point is so minor.  Msnicki (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What about http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AudioExpert ? Only findmysoft source is used to establish notability. I don't think we should continue this discussion. Neither I will be able to convince you nor you will be able to convince me. You have given your vote and I have given mine. End of Discussion. SmackoVector (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First, that's the German site. They can do what they like.  Second, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  Who knows how long that article will stick around before it's nominated for deletion.  Third, there is a difference between no usable sources cited and no sources available.  Here at AfD, the question isn't about content and whether appropriate sources have been cited but whether they exist.  If it's a content problem, that can always be fixed and we should (and I do, all the time) !vote to keep.  But if suitable sources do not exist, that cannot be fixed.  In this case, those sources do not exist.  But maybe they will soon.  Often with new products, it may just be that it's WP:TOOSOON.  But have some faith in the guidelines.  If it's genuinely attracting attention, someone will write about it in a reliable source soon enough.   Msnicki (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – I, too, was struck by the fact the the author of the leading product in this area, Rex Conn, felt moved to write about it. Further, even Conn's product, Take Command Console, doesn't get much coverage in mainstream publications, and there are many other examples of programs with a fairly wide user base, but without much coverage in popular media. That lack of coverage is quite understandable, but it shouldn't lead to the deletion of articles about significant programs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My objection isn't that Conn's blog piece is negative, it's that it's not a WP:RELIABLE source, as required to establish notability. To the contrary, it is the essence of a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." (emphasis added)  Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your characterisisation of Conn's blog as being widely acknowledged for its extremist views, relying on rumours, etc. is wrong. I maintain that he is the author of the leading program in the field of replacements for Microsoft's cmd.exe and that gives his opinion in this case extra weight. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're having difficulty parsing the "or" in the original text of WP:QUESTIONABLE or if bolding the particular words I relied on just wasn't a big enough clue. I am NOT claiming Conn's blog represents extremist views or that he relies on rumors.  I AM claiming it lacks editorial oversight, that it's promotional and that it's personal opinion.  That makes it WP:QUESTIONABLE and unsuitable for establishing notability under WP:GNG.  Msnicki (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps worth following up on your remark, "even Conn's product, "Take Command Console, doesn't get much coverage in mainstream publications". Consider what Conn is doing:  He wants to sell his product.  He knows that his command line stuff is never going to be in the news again unless he shoots someone.  But there still is a market for that product segment and he wants to reach his customers.  It's pretty likely he relies mostly on people discovering him through search engines.  So now the problem is how to show up everywhere, even when people are searching for his competitors or for other terms that suggest they're a good prospect.  His solution is to write a page on that topic (and every other he can think of that's next on the list) and title it a review or some such.  With luck, it pops right to the top in Google.  When people get to his page, he sells them his own product.  You're looking at an ad page, one of many he's designed, hoping they'll let him show up high on Google for various search terms.  This also is not like CNET.  Msnicki (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Michael Bednarek. Rex Conn has found FireCMD notable enough to compare it with his product (even if his intention is to make his product look superior than his competitor's product). Rex Conn is a professional researcher and developer in this field and we can't ignore this fact. You wrote: "He knows that his command line stuff is never going to be in the news again unless he shoots someone." and he has written this review for "people searching for his competitors". If this is the case then Wikipedia should definitely have an article for a product for which people are searching on Google and want information about it. I clearly understand what you are trying to convey Msnicki, but this thing only adds to the notability of the subject. It is so notable that competitor of the product has to write about it and compare with his product to convert potential FireCMD buyers into Take Command Console buyers! SmackoVector (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The guidelines do not provide that a subject is notable if only Rex Conn (or any other individual you personally happen to think is an authority) writes something on his personal blog. To the contrary, the guidelines label that kind of source WP:QUESTIONABLE and useless in establishing notability.  If you can't accept the guidelines as rules we will all agree to play by, why are you here?  Msnicki (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not Rex Conn's personal blog as I said earlier. He doesn't write about what he did last weekend. Its JP Software's blog maintained by Rex Conn. JP Software is a different entity even if he is the only person running the company. This is the description about the company: "We are owned and operated by refugees from the corporate wars who wanted to have a little more control over our results and fun in our lives. Our primary products are command processors, tools that assist the user in working at the command line (the C:\> prompt) and with batch files. We currently offer products for Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista, Windows 2008, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 2012." http://jpsoft.com/company/company.html . This means he is not the only owner. If you still doubt you can find and provide a WP:RS but still that won't make much difference. He only writes about the field of subject in the blog. He is a professional researcher and developer in this field. Weblog material written by professionals writing within their field are acceptable. He has contributed in this field and also in open source community by developing 4DOS and Take Command Console. This is not useless in establishing notability. SmackoVector (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From Independent, "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting. However, less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish. For example, much scientific research is often funded by companies with an interest in the outcome of the experiments, and such research makes its way into peer-reviewed journals. Journals themselves can also have conflicts of interest due to their funding sources. Caution must be used in accepting sources as independent." (emphasis added) Rex Conn and JP Software have the most obvious conflict of interest one might imagine:  He wants people to buy his product not this other one (if you were even considering it).  He is thus not independent.  You can't use this source to establish notability.  There are just too many things wrong with it.  Msnicki (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This guideline is for the subject. The subject is FireCMD. JPSoft and Rex Conn does not have an interest in promoting FireCMD and are independent. SmackoVector (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What does it take to get this across? Conn has a financial interest in publicizing that his product is better than FireCMD.  That's the only reason he's writing anything about FireCMD.  It's the same reason he's written blog posts trashing ALL his competitors, no matter how obscure.  This is absolutely, positively NOT like CNET publishing an actual article about either of these products, which, btw, has about zero probability of ever happening.  Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyone in the world who are in business have some financial interest. Even CNET write reviews because of financial interest. Even if Conn has a financial interest the fact is he wrote about FireCMD because he found it notable. He found that people are searching for it. This type of software doesn't get much coverage in mainstream publications as Michael Bednarek said but it shouldn't lead to the deletion of article. Wikipedia also advises to use some common sense while following the guidelines. I think there is no point in debating anymore. Goodbye. SmackoVector (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But CNET is a legitimate and respected news source owned by CBS Corporation, which has a reputation for fact-checking and fair reporting. They make money doing it but not because they have a financial interest in the stories they report.  This is so basic, we do agree on one thing:  There is no  point is arguing this with you.  You will never give up, no matter how obviously wrong.  Msnicki (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It might help if you provided a WP:RS for some of your essential points. Start with one (preferably several) for Take Command Console as the "leading product", etc., as support for the followup assertions. TEDickey (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing notable from RS. If it wasn't worthy 3 months ago with the same information, it's not worthy now.  Caffeyw (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Only marginal sources and not many at that. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The whole discussion of the blog above is pointless as it fails to be both independent, and a reliable source as we would define it on wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (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.