Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Publisher


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 01:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

News Publisher

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Article about electronic publishing software without claim to notability; there are no reliable sources but several self-published ones - looks a little like an effort to market the product, to me. bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Articles for deletion/Universal Converter, software produced by the same company, article written by the same people. --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the sources on the page are sufficient to establish notability; or even acceptable as reliable.  Every one is a primary company source, user editable content, press releases, or dimple directory SEO.  I left a note on the article's talk page to improve this, but it seems to have been ignored.  My own searches for sources did not turn up anything, but this may be hampered by the rather generic name of the software. If kept, there's a good sized clean-up that would be necessary - I'm afraid this is simple COI created adcopy.  Kuru   (talk)  11:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. reference from website: http://o-oum.com/ and http://www.blog.fulldowns.com/ are review sites as mentioned on top of the websites, and I do not see any link to submit user generated content or the company name on the above mentioned sites. Ankit (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * o-oum is a press release, or a simple copy of it; the other link is a blog. Have you had a chance to read WP:RS yet?  Kuru   (talk)  13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Also, references
 * http://www.blog.fulldowns.com/press-release-submission-software/
 * http://o-oum.com/articles/a-stunning-news-distribution-service-providing-software-news-publisher.html/
 * http://wiki.buddhistmeditations.org/news-publisher-%E2%80%93-an-elegant-and-effective-tool-for-internet-marketing/ have author name mentioned as site admin, and the site top banner pertains to product reviews, along with no link to submit user generated content on these pages/sites. Ankit (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two blogs and the same PR link as above. Kuru   (talk)  13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Same reasoning for keeping the article:the reference from techbuzzblog.com : http://techbuzzblog.com/gadgets/2011/03/press-release-submission-software-an-easy-approach-to-increase-your-online-business.html is by the site admin. and techbuzzblog.com is a reputed site for reviews about technical topics and gadgets and the site publishes weekly features reviews and stories of gadgets and products. Please see its weekly features stories on its front page: http://techbuzzblog.com/ Ankit (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot access this link at the moment, but the URL seems to indicate it is another blog. I hope you do not mind that I have struck your multiple !votes; one suffices.  Kuru   (talk)  13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could access it - it's another blog, and the text is identical to that of the blog.fulldowns.com post. --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And there is a review by the site's editor on the page: http://www.lifetimeupgrades.com/windows/network-internet/browser-tools/news-publisher/ Ankit (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * will a link from site hotreviews.com (review site) be acceptable? http://hotreviews.com/press-release-submission-press-release-submitter-press-release-service-news-release-distribution-submit-a-press-release-submit-press-release-press-release-distribution-submit-press-releases-press-rele/ Ankit (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * will a link from site advice-and.info (advice and information site) be acceptable? http://advice-and.info/Computers-and-Technology/377160_Getting_Instant_Traffic_To_Your_Website_Using_Press_Release_Submitter.html Ankit (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An article that specifically describes CAPTCHA feature in News Publisher: http://www.thoughts.com/lucianomulli316/manual-captcha-bypass-gives-advantageous-alternatives-to-captcha Ankit (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some more links: http://www.skyeclothes.com/news-publisher-grow-your-business-with-news-marketing.html
 * It appeared to me that there is one article on Wikipedia: Universal_Converter_(Unit_Conversion_Software) with almost no reference from any reliable or unreliable source etc., would that not be considered a AfD? I am not trying to argue the rules, just want to me more clear why many articles on Wiki are perfect with no links while many independent review links on this article are not considered by moderators. Ankit (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ankit, you still seem to be showing links to blogs. Have you had an opportunity to read WP:RS yet?  Kuru   (talk)  18:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can the News Publisher article be kept with "article needs improvement" tag so that moderators get enough time to improve article and find more links? There will be more independent reviews of the software in future and those can be added as links. 122.176.130.168 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Articles for deletion discussions such as this one generally last seven days; this article was only added to the deletion discussions yesterday, so there is plenty of time to add any existing reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia's policy on editing where there is a conflict of interest, and note that the existence of other articles on Wikipedia can't be used as arguments to keep or delete an article; each article stands on its own merits. It is possible that the other article you mention should be deleted, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note There's some discussion, and a number of sources (which I haven't looked at, so I don't know if they are the same that have been posted here) on Talk:News Publisher as well. I've requested on that page that all discussion about the possible deletion of News Publisher should take place on this AfD page, to make the debate less fractured. --bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blogs and press releases are not reliable sources.  The article is an advertisement.  Yet more unremarkable software being advertised on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the section: Newspaper and magazine blogs on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability it states that "if a news, magazine blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, it is counted as reliable source". Further to it, if the author is the admin or the editor of the site (which is mentioned on top of most of the links present in the article page and here), it strengthens the source's reliability. Now, the links posted by admin/editor of lifetimeupgrades, techbuzzblog, blog.fulldowns.com, butuhdoa.info, etc. and all other links will be counted as a blog section of news, magazine sites? especially when some clearly stated the post as their featured post. I believe we need to make a distinction between a user generated blog on generic blog sites such as blog.co.in, eblooger.com etc, and the dedicated news/blog sites of technical articles such as lifetimeupgrades, techbuzzblog, blog.fulldowns.com Ankit (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll defer to Kuru's judgment here as the more experienced editor, but it is clear that at least techbuzzblog.com and blog.fulldowns.com are inappropriate as sources in this case, because they are simply reprinting the promotional article written by the company itself (the text is also found here, and a lot of it is also on the company homepage). --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have links to the New York Times blog or another significant publication with strong editorial control which extends to blog like sections from their authors, that would be great. Such sites are what that exception is carved out for.  I think you're trying to really stretch it at this point, and your conflict of interest as an employee/owner is becoming a problem. If you're seriously asking me to evaluate "fulldowns.com" as a reliable source, then I'm done here.   Kuru   (talk)  12:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Mashup web sites that simply reproduce press releases or equivalent do not count as independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2011 (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.