Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO Master


 * 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. No policy-based reasons for keeping the article have been presented. The onus falls on those arguing for its retention to prove the subject is notable by way of significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources, and this has not been established. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

ISO Master

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PRODed over a year ago and was restored. Referenced only by primary sources and I could find none in WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you just said in language a regular human being can understand? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mig21 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be working on updating the page over the next few days. Mig21 (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I made some changes, and the way I understand the rules the article should no longer have the problems that caused the PROD. Are there any objections to removing the notice now? Mig21 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Mig21 is a WP:SPA who has admitted to being the product's author. Just putting this on the table. It does not mean that the product is not notable. I am only stating that so other editors know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving here from User_talk:Mig21: Mig21 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am the author of the application. I have tried very hard to be objective. Please clarify in Talk:ISO_Master what you feel is inappropriate, and feel free to improve or suggest improvements. Mig21 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I never claimed anything other than your direct involvement is problematic. You don't seem to have a clear understanding of how Wikipedia works and this will continue to cause problems. Your best bet now is to prove that your product meets WP:GNG: it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means write-ups, not how-tos or lists of ports, in sources that have little or nothing to do with you or the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Walter. Can you please clarify how http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/linux/ISO-Master-50543.shtml is not a "write-up"? Do you mean "it's not a book"? I looked over WP:GNG and that as well as the other pages linked to under "Reception" seem to hit every point. I would really appreciate getting some specifics rather than vague complaints about how something might be wrong because maybe it's not right. Thanks. Mig21 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just not a reliable source. It has no author. Softpedia has no editorial oversight. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for full details on how to determine what is reliable and what is not. If you want it included as a fully reliable source, raise the issue at WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you come up with this stuff? It clearly states the author's name is Mihai Marinof, the date of the review, and the version reviewed. I assure you that website (nor any of the other websites listed under Reception) has nothing to do with me. The website has a large team of editors: http://www.softpedia.com/editors/ which does not include Marinof probably because it's been so many years since the review. Do you have any other objections to the current content in ISO_Master? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mig21 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I erred. Most sources list the author, the byline, at the top, not on the left side. My mistake. As for where I come up with this stuff: READ THE LINKS I SUPPLY! As for editorial oversight: WP:RS. And independent of the author is simply one of the criteria. I am focusing on the RS. WP:RSN has mixed opinions on Softpedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Softpedia has been described in numerous software afd discussions as a non-independent source as nearly all of their articles, including the one about ISO Master, contain a prominent download link. Even if Softpedia was considered independent in this discussion, one independent source is insufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really not trying to be an idiot, but I honestly don't understand what you are talking about. Can you please try to be helpful and point out what would count as a reliable source for this page or a page like it? You can (and many will) argue about WP:RSN until the end of time. I have no interest in participating in that debate. How does that relate to this specific article? As it is now: it provides some objective information about a small application. What's wrong with that? There have been no New York Times articles written about it, and no books. That doesn't seem to me like a good reason to delete the page from Wikipedia. I don't know what else you would consider a reliable source because you haven't given any examples. To me all the noted sources follow WP:GNG. Can we please stop talking in the abstract and start fixing things by pointing out specific problems (i.e. this fact is wrong, this author is biased, this person doesn't know what they're talking about)? What are we actually discussing here? Mig21 (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Can I now delete the "Article for deletion" box? I can't find an explanation anywhere of what counts as "until the discussion has been closed". Mig21 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not delete it. Only an admin (or an editor who was not involved in the discussion) who closes the debate may do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. But how long is that supposed to take? There hasn't been any discussion here for over two weeks. Surely there is some deadline? Mig21 (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No deadline. The more you write, the more daunting it is for uninvolved editors to become involved. Unless you can offer significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, you should reduce the chatter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems unreasonable and sounds a bit like "shut up and go away". I would really appreciate it if you stayed on point and tried to help. May I ask why your opinion about the quality of the sources is more valuable than mine? Surely there is a process for coming to a conclusion in disagreements like this? You decided on your own to delete the page, and deleted it. Do you have some special privileges on Wikipedia that make your opinion more valuable than mine? Mig21 (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Walter, please stop confusing the discussion by spreading it all over the place. Copied the following which was just posted in User_talk:Mig21:
 * you don't get it

There is only one way that you can keep your product's article on Wikipedia: find Anything else is not useful. Discussing how to remove the AfD notice will happen when the community is ready to remove it. And there's no statute of limitations. If we decide to keep it now for whatever reason, an editor can come along in a year's time and nominate it again. That can happen until it's deleted. So your best bet is to either stop promoting your project or find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) significant coverage
 * 2) in reliable sources
 * 3) that are independent of the subject


 * You're right, I don't get it. I don't understand why you've decided that this page needs to be deleted and absolutely refuse to consider that you're wrong. I've already asked multiple times what would count as a reliable source for this type of article and I'm very tired of repeating myself. I'm starting to think that either you have something personal against ISO Master or myself or you're just a troublemaker more interested in pumping your chest than making Wikipedia better. Yes - it's my project. No - that's not a good reason to delete the page. This page has nothing in it except facts, and that's what Wikipedia is supposed to be full of. Not useless discussions like this. Mig21 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not decided it needs to be deleted. I have suggested that because it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that it should not have an article. I am seeking the input of other editors on Wikipedia to determine if that's the case. If there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then it should be. If there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it should remain on Wikipedia. I could be wrong, but since I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I don't think I am, because that is primary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I stated above that you should read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources if you want to find out what we mean by reliable sources.
 * For the record, Wikipedia is not supposed to be full of facts. I don't know where you got that idea. It's supposed to be full of information about subjects that have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The article verges on being G11-worthy; it has little encyclopedic value and seems to exist purely in order to promote the product. This is reflected in the sources, which read either as press-releases and advertorials, or primary and non-independent of the subject. Unfortunately, a WP:BEFORE search suggests that sources of this vintage are the only kind available. There is no depth or persistence of coverage, which means the subject fails the general notability guidelines as well as the more specific WP:ORGCRITE.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:28, 16 April 2017 (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.