Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICEpdf


 * 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. The "keep" opinions are clearly unfounded in policy and practice.  Sandstein  05:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

ICEpdf

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD. Non-notable software; has zero third-party sources and searching online showed none either. Article fails WP:GNG SudoGhost 23:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, thank you for the alert on this discussion. I am not sure why this article on ICEpdf is being nominated for deletion? The note mentions that the produce (ICEpdf) lacks third-party sources - this is something we are working on developing. What would you recommend for changes until we can establish online presence for third-party sources? Also, please provide recommendations for third-party sources of which you require to include in the article that it becomes notable software?

--Fnasser007 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't. The sources have to exist first. By third-party sources, this would mean reputable reviews of the software, news articles explicitly about it, etc. Things like press releases and personal websites don't count since they're Primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence of notability. Truth be told, this is hovering on the edge of G11 for being blatantly promotional.   Ravenswing   03:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Per nom and Ravenswing. Looks like G11; notice the "References" section is just a bunch of a links to various pages of their own website. — JmaJeremy • Ƭalk • Cont   06:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons stated above. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this entry is no different that many JPedal, Adobe_acrobat, Qoppa_PDF_Libraries, iText --Lepack (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Lepack (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The existence of other articles doesn't mean this one should be kept; articles are judged on their own merits, not the existence or absence of other articles. - SudoGhost 16:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As well as seconding SudoGhost's comment I would point out that you are damaging your credibility by making the ridiculous claim that ICEpdf is in the same league as Adobe Acrobat. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not delete I found this article to be very useful and helpful esp. the code examples. In fact this was so useful that this prompted me to sign up for an account to provide feedback on this discussion. I'm sure other wikipedia users will agree.--JavaGuruz (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: That may be so, but the purported utility of an article has no bearing on the subject's notability. The fundamental determining factor is whether the world has heard of it.  So far, the evidence suggests "No."  See WP:ITSUSEFUL for further clarification.   Ravenswing   20:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 4 July 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.