Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTTPhotos


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

HTTPhotos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable piece of software, with no detailed coverage in reliable sources beyond a c-net review. This must have been one of the first articles I passed through Articles for Creation, and looking back now, I've got no idea why I did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. The article has remained at stub status since creation. It has had a template / tag on it for two years. The article is not being maintained and services no purpose. I gently disagree about "notable" - this is the only free desktop photo gallery software listed on the 'comparison of photo gallry software' page. (I have no idea if my comment is in correct place, please refactor if it isn't 31.55.15.178 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references; refs provided are to download sites which are not considered independent as they provide the software. A search found other download sites, but did not turn up any significant RS coverage apart from this (possibly RS) german magazine com-magazin.de review, which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: download sites' editors' reviews are not exactly independent, so they don't contribute to subject's notability. "com!" magazine, if it is RS at all, is obviously not sufficient. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The NPOV tag was set in July 2012 because "the referenced cnet article also reported problems with the installer, which were not referenced in the article". In July 2013, an edit was made to the article to include this issue but no reply was provided and NPOV tag remains there. Also an internet search with "httphotos" keyword shows many websites built with this tool which in my opinion is enough to make this tool notable. Here are some independent reviews:
 * youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sya34vR4vf8
 * Chapter 32 (Free web publishing software) from "Digital Photography for Next to Nothing" written by John Lewell
 * reviewed by COM! magazine http://www.com-magazin.de/news/software/httphotos-3.0-erstellt-dynamische-galerien-220196.html
 * reviewed by Computer Easy magazine http://www.computereasy.nl/tips-en-tools/internet/thumbnails-en-galerij-maken/3183/
 * reviewed by CNET http://download.cnet.com/HTTPhotos/3000-13455_4-75126139.html
 * reviewed Findmysoft http://httphotos.findmysoft.com/
 * reviewed Nonags http://www.nonags.com/freeware-httphotos_4256.html


 * Most of those sources are unreliable. the COM! and Computer Easy reviews are the only real ones that carry any weight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A source like CNET contains a publisher description but also an Editor (CNET staff) review. Could you please tell how such a review is Self Publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The CNET source is okay, sorry, I assumed since I'd mentioned it at the top of the AfD I wasn't including it in my assessment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, CNET is not OK: it distributes this software, so it is nowhere close to being independent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, because although CNET distributes any software under the sun, some random person can't just make up an editor review, so it comes with good standing. I wouldn't expect a non-independent source to say "The program doesn't come with much in the way of documentation". For me it falls down on not being particularly significant coverage, merely being a brief product description. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If we say the CNET editor's review is "not being particularly significant coverage" then I would be curious to be shown a significant reference for, let's say, Picasa. Picasa is for sure a very well known application since Google acquisition but if you look at the wikipedia references on Picasa and you ignore all the references from google.com, then can you find something significant? In addition, I encourage the reading of CNET policy were you can conclude that not just any software is published by CNET. CNET is independent on deciding if they publish or not the software. Then, not all software are reviewed and rated by CNET. For this reason, I don't understand why COM Magazin or Computer Easy would be more relevant than CNET, they are all different significant sources. Finally, if you run this query on google you will verify that about 1,650,000 web pages have been built using the freeware HTTPhotos, which in my opinion is significant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage for Picasa: PC World, PC Magazine, New York Times, Wired, et cetera, et cetera.  Narrowing the search to the data Google acquired the service and rolled it out would provide several more in-depth stories.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage can be found on the web about Picasa, I was only surprised not to see any significant wikipedia references attached to the Picasa article. Two weights, two measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course CNET's editors' reviews are reliable sources. Still, they host a lot of software downloads, and their reviews are written to promote software they host, thus promoting services. The problem here is not with their bias, but with the fact that they host indiscriminate collection of software and review random pieces without making reusable notability assessment, which WP:GNG is all about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * CNET do discriminate, please refer CNET policy. I also imagine it would be difficult to get an Hello world published on CNET. I also understand your concern on the fact that CNET also distributes the software but they would not distribute it if they believe the software will bring no attention. FromSpace (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything do discriminate somehow. And basically everything discriminates more then CNET. Basically, only software with no downloads and known malware can't make to CNET. So CNET is practically indiscriminate. And again, it offers downloads of software it reviews, which means it is not independent. Any of these is enough to disqualify CNET for WP:N use, regardless the fact that editor's reviews from CNET are absolutely OK for WP:V purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;Not enough in the way of WP:RS to meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "in the way of" doesn't provide any precise arguments, could you please justify against WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're asking for. The applicable notability criterion at WP:NSOFT reads "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field."  That's not the case here.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

To sum-up current situation: The initial complaint was: "Non notable piece of software, with no detailed coverage in reliable sources beyond a c-net review". We are still discussing whether or not CNET is a reliable source (I believe it is because of initial CNET acceptance to publish and additional CNET review). I've pointed the following press sources: [http://www.com-magazin.de/news/software/httphotos-3.0-erstellt-dynamische-galerien-220196.html COM! - Das Computer Magazin], Computer Easy Magazine and I'm now adding this one Báo điện tử một thế giới. There is also a book mentioning the tool. There are some tutorials written by people from different countries (see article references). There is a significant usage of this tool (see google query) allowing people to make an independent photo gallery for free. If I check at Notability it says "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction." I would say HTTPhotos is worthy of notice, especially when it is the only freeware desktop application in Comparison of photo gallery software. Now, it is a lot less popular as Google Picasa software, but I don't think notable means popular. FromSpace (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , I assume you've had a chance to read WP:NSOFT by now. Reliability isn't a binary characteristic:  the less (potentially) controversial the claim, the weaker the source is allowed to be.  CNet is perfectly reliable in establishing that the software exists, but it doesn't take much to get CNet to host your software.  I'm not seeing any sources, though, that attest to the software's significance.  I've never heard of this piece of software before, and I don't use photo software, so what source can you point me to that will reassure me that this this particular photo software stands out from the many others that have existed to the point where we can write a good article about it?  The gold standard here is in-depth reviews.  Tutorials, blog posts, and directory entries can all exist for non-notable software, so pointing out that they exist here doesn't help us in understanding what notability exists.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is very inaccurate summary. All of the sources that were presented are either too short to demonstrate significant coverage, unreliable or not independent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 18 July 2014 (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.