Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Chantrey


 * 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. BJ Talk 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee Chantrey

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

Contested and declined speedy deletion--there is a clear assertion of notability, so not a speedy candidate, but may benefit from a wider debate on general notability and reliability of this information. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The issue here is that there are no verifiable sources given. If some are found that establish the truth of these claims than I will change my vote to keep.Nrswanson (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Sources are now beginning to surface in the article. I believe this page will be useful for the people that want to learn more about this man, since he is widely known for his programs, now an important part of skinning Windows XP. DeathShot39 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Did you even look at the supposed sources? None of them are third party reliable sources but links to informal discussions on blog pages or other useless places. One of them even links to wikipedia itself as a source. No valid sources have been found.Nrswanson (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. How else can non commercial freeware software prove itself ? All the facts can be verified by using the software yourself. I have also changed the article to be from a more NPOV.'''Christina884 (talk) 4:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even freeware or shareware gets write ups in computer magazines and reputable websites at times. If the software is that important than it will be found in a reliable source. Otherwise, it is probably not notable.Nrswanson (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So softpedia, lifehacker, and vnunet.com(computeractive) are not "reliable" sources ?'''Christina884 (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm afraid not. Particularly sense they are advertisements rather than an actual article about the software from an independent source. If you can download the software from the site than it is not really an independent source.Nrswanson (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to disagree, Softpedia may not have a written review. But the other websites listed are reviews of the software written by a professional. Such as Tim Smith from ComputerActiv'''Christina884 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources about the subject. His own website, and forum posts don't establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. In my opinion ComputerActive is both notable and reliable.'''Christina884 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. Christina884 has made no edits prior prior to those on Lee Chantrey and on this AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm afraid not. The author of the content of ComputerActive is unkown and reads like an advertisement. Most likely written by Lee Chantrey himself as self promotion.Nrswanson (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If we contact ComputerActive i am sure they could confirm the identity of Tim Smith for you. Should we ask them if programmers themself can write self promotional material about their own software on the publisher's website and magazines. What an unprofessional thing to allow. In your opinion would you allow your magazine to have biased information? Of course not. ComputerActive is just one reliable source. A quick google search will show that the software is also reviewed on chip.eu, keznews.com, freewarebb.com, cybernetnews.com, freewarefiles.com, askvg.com, uptodown.com. And also it appears in hundreds of other websites in different languages. Where do we draw the line to say this is signficant and that this source can be reliable. Is there a list of websites that software must appear on to be signficant enough to be on wikipedia? If one source isn't reliable then the other 608,000 results on google are completely unreliable? Christina884 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether or not something exists but about whether the notability of the subject can be supported through verifiable references. As of yet no reliable have been found. Advertisements for products are not viewed as reliable references.Nrswanson (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I declare that the websites mentioned above are reliable and it's your opinion that they are not and its my opinion that the websites are reliable. But just because the sources mentioned above say positive things about the software that does not make it an advertisement. Christina884 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can somebody provide a link to the articles about Lee Chantrey? All these websites are being bandied about but I don't see any actual articles about Lee Chantrey. -- Whpq (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- I doubt that any of these websites will pan out any better than the already shoddy resources referenced on the article. Christina884, an SPA, is the author of the article and she (or Lee Chantry?) would have used them if they were. I am thinking this may be an attempt at self promotion.Nrswanson (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nrswanson and Whpq. It's telling that nothing comes up under a google news search and I see no more than a handful of relevant ghits, most of which appear to be forum/blog based.– Zedla (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (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.