Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HelpNDoc


 * 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   keep. Two acceptable sources have been found and the nominator changed their mind. No longer any calls for deletion in the debate. Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

HelpNDoc

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable piece of software, produced by a non-notable company. A google news search gives three insubstantial references: one from a local paper, one from PC World associated with a download link and therefore arguably commercial, and one from a source on which we have no article. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NB: have later switched to weak keep after sources were provided Gonzonoir (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Response from Jonjbar (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)jonjbar

Gonzonoir, here are some reviews and facts about HelpNDoc which might be helpful:
 * 739,000 results on google
 * 386,000 results on Yahoo
 * It is fair to note that another listed software Help & Manual doesn't have much more news items according to google news
 * Independent review by indoition in the "Low-cost tools" section
 * Independent review by Softpedia
 * Independent review by 3D3F software directory
 * Editor's review #1 by Free Download Center
 * Editor's review #2 by Free Download Center
 * Editor's review by Free downloads a day
 * Editor's review by Completely free software
 * Short independent introduction by Jerry G. Gervacio
 * Brazilian independent review by Super Downloads
 * Partially independent review by Bits Du Jour


 *  Weak delete  (see below). All available coverage seems to be limited to user testimonials and trivial software directory summaries. I was unable to find a single reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from Jonjbar (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you at least read the Softpedia Review ? This clearly isn't a trivial summary at all. Good and bad features are clearly mentioned at the bottom and the article is clearly written by a popular web site according to Alexa. Also, screen-captures from the previously mentioned Softpedia article clearly show that the tester actually used the software for the review.
 * Softpedia is first and foremost a software depository. Its editors can be quite indiscriminate in their coverage and occasionally review the type of software that doesn't seem have any notability whatsoever. Some of their recent reviews cover such low-profile subjects as "BitDefender Total Security 2010 Beta - Novice Mode", "BitDefender Total Security 2010 Beta - Advanced Mode", "Cornerstone Bible - The Perfect Bible Study Tool", "Startup Programs Buddy", and so forth. Would you support creating two additional BitDefender mode-related articles as well? So, the way I see it, the Softpedia review alone just does not satisfy WP:N and the rest of the sources you mentioned all seem to fail WP:SOURCES in one way or the other. Perhaps if I see another in-depth review that can be used as a reliable indicator of notability, I will change my position to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I guess the final one I can give might be rejected too for not being "in-depth" enough. It's a review from one of the most popular French computer news web-site and here is the review they published translated by Google - Jonjbar (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since it looks like this AfD may turn on the reliability of the sources, I've made a request for input on the ones you've listed over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I've also read up on the reliability guidelines and checked over each of the sources you listed. One relevant guideline is on self-published sources: it specifies that, where sites are self-published (i.e. don't have established editorial processes to meet the standards of WP:RS), we should check whether individual contributors to such sites are experts who also write for other, reliable sources. With that in mind, I think the following of the sources you provided don't meet our reliability guidelines:
 * Independent review by 3D3F software directory
 * This site doesn't provide any authorship information or any details of its editorial processes, so I think can't be deemed reliable. The only name I can find attached to the site is Michael Monashev, and I can't find any evidence of his authority.
 * Editor's review #1 by Free Download Center
 * Editor's review #2 by Free Download Center
 * Neither of the Free Download Center reviews is attributed to an author. The site itself provides no information about its editorial processes so there's no indication it meets reliability standards.
 * Editor's review by Free downloads a day
 * No authorship details provided; the sites About page provides no indication of reliability. Doesn't look to me as though it clears our self-published sources guideline.
 * Editor's review by Completely free software
 * No authorship information available for checking authority; parent site appears to be effectively run by one person, who himself doesn't seem to have authority beyond the site.
 * Short independent introduction by Jerry G. Gervacio
 * This one's a blog; the author doesn't appear to have independent authority, so doesn't pass WP:SPS.
 * Partially independent review by Bits Du Jour
 * 'Partial' independence probably isn't enough; this site reads to me as promotional.


 * There's also
 * Brazilian independent review by Super Downloads
 * No authorship information is given, but my Portuguese isn't up to establishing whether this is a good source.


 * So that leaves:
 * Independent review by indoition in the "Low-cost tools" section
 * A self-published source by Marc Achtelig. He appears to have published some books and papers, which may make him a reliable source - I'm not sure. Would like others' input.
 * Independent review by Softpedia
 * Tending to view this as an acceptable source.

To me, this still looks thin, and I'm still leaning delete. I'd like to know what others think of the sources. But then, that's why we're at AfD :) Gonzonoir (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by Jonjbar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Softpedia's reviewer, Codrut Nistor clearly seems impartial as shown by the many reviews he has written for the web-site (545 according to google). Its reviews doesn't target only the best software: This makes me think the reviewer is clearly independent and impartial and shows that the in-depth review he gave HelpNDoc can be trusted. Jonjbar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 2/5 stars and noted as "Fair". The reviewer says: "This program is unbalanced, because it offers some interesting and useful features but also lacks some basic ones, and if I should have the money for it, I would keep using The Gimp and buy a really useful commercial program."
 * 1/5 stars and noted as "Poor". He says: "I will be honest - to me, this program is featureless, buggy as hell and I wouldn't use it again until its fifth or sixth final version!"
 * 2/5 stars and noted as "Fair". He says: "There's one thing that makes me really sad about this program, the fact that all this work put into it could have produced an excellent two pane file manager, but the way things are, XYplorer is too expensive to worth its price."
 * "Good" with 3/5 stars
 * "Fair" with 2/5 stars
 * "Fair" with 2/5 stars
 * and the list goes on...


 * Delete - Indoition, for me is still the equivalent of a blog. About the only source that might be useable is Softpedia, and that's a weak one.  So given all of this, there isn't the coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from Jonjbar (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Other reference sources I can find include:
 * Boston Broadside Independent review on page 2
 * Academic publications:
 * Page 4 and 8
 * Page 14
 * Page 56 and 74
 * Page 52
 * Page 11 and 83
 * Page 17 and 79

Keep. The two reviews by Softpedia and Boston Broadside seem to fairly sufficient to pass a WP:N check. I'm changing my position to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree. Thank you for taking the time to review all the listed content. Jonjbar (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep With the caveat that this is not my field and I'm not totally convinced of the calibre of any of these sources, you've demonstrated at least that the software has been covered in multiple sources that appear independent. Though I was nominator, I'm switching to a weak keep. Gonzonoir (talk)
 * Thank you for your input Gonzonoir and for taking the time to review the content. Jonjbar (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (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.