Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDF24 Creator


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

PDF24 Creator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run-of-the-mill PDF application that fails WP:NSOFT. "Wikipedia is not a directory of all apps that can be confirmed to exist. An app that is just another entry in a crowded field needs more persuasively significant sources, of a kind that indicate that it stands out from the crowd." This absolutely does not have that. Routine reviews from download hosts (which arguably are not even third-party sources as they have a vested interest in the software they host) does not create notability.

Per WP:NSOFT: "the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable." That's all this article really has going for it, and that's not enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Aoidh (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Outstanding as per unique feature set. --83.135.228.180 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Has current or historical reciption with top placements in big download portals, e.g. in the biggest ones for the German market. Depending on category it places in the top 10, e.g. with 5 million downloads on chip.de alone, to use some absolute numbers. Has numerous mentions in special interest magazines (and here I take c't as an example not a random, arbitrary collection of apps, which would not have editorial effort) which objectively confirms a certain current and historic reciption. --83.135.228.180 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment "Place 7" by downloads in "PDF Tools" at heise.de, "Place 3" with more than 5 millionen downloads in "PDF Tools" at chip.de. Comprehensive tests and reputable reviews are present additionally. The special interest magazine c't in his report on PDF printers has reviewed this item noting and stressing its unique features (see also c't 25/2014, p. 140 with more links). --83.135.228.180 (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything particular for notability, and the IP edits have failed to address this with reliable sources. I am sure it is a serviceable product, however, it looks like a delete. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That heise.de/ct magazine article about PDF printers ("Portable Dokumente") may be good reliable source (but behind pay wall). Pavlor (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Chip.de lists several articles about this software: eg., Pavlor (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They are also the software's download host. Not a third-party source and not something that shows notability in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you meant this as a joke. Chip and heise.de/ct are some of the most important german technology magazines. Of course these are reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. I don´t get why hosting of software titles makes them less reliable (eg. Chip.de hosts more than 30000 packages...). Pavlor (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said hosting the files made it a less reliable source, I said it made it not a third-party source. Big difference. Wikipedia articles require third-party reliable sources, not just reliable sources. The sources must be independent of the subject to show notability, simply being reliable is insufficient, per WP:N. - Aoidh (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe my English comprehension is limited, but what makes Chip.de and heise.de not-independent on the subject of this article? If PDF24 Creator and said sites/magazines were owned by the same company, I would agree with you. However, as far as I know this is not the case there. Both sites are clear third-party sources. Pavlor (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A site that hosts software has a vested interest in promoting that software. They wouldn't host software if there was no reason to do so, so promoting that software increases the downloads for that software. They are not independent of the software, they distribute it to customers. Being owned by the same company is not the standard by which a "third-party source that is independent of the subject" is determined. There is a relationship between Chip.de and PDF24; Chip.de hosts the software for PDF24. That relationship means that Chip.de is not an independent, third-party source for PDF24. That's not to say it's not a reliable source, but the reliability is not the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course there is reason to host software... reader's convenience. I must admit I find your argumentation questionable at best. Pavlor (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable as per what, exactly? I explained, through Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays, why the source is not suitable. You've provided no explanation as to why it should be. That you don't like the explanation does not render it moot. That source is not an independent source. A software host is not independent of the software they host. That's something so basic I can't see how it can be questioned, would you care to explain how they are independent, especially when taking Wikipedia policy into consideration? - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough references in third-party independent reliable sources (both printed and online) to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Another two references from german tech magazine (PC Welt):, Pavlor (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the other sources, both of these are routine, run-of-the-mill "take all comers" software reviews, exactly the kind of sources that WP:NSOFT points out as being insufficient for establishing notability. The issue is that these are the only kind of sources that exist, adding a couple more doesn't solve the notability issue. - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I don´t share your assessment of these sources. I will add sources I mentioned in this AfD to the article. Pavlor (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Aoidh's arguments are clueless as to how much software is distributed. Sites that distribute thousands of software programs do not disqualify them as a reliable source. In fact, it makes them a more reliable source. Their reviews matter, as does the average review of users on those large software distribution sites. The more popular the software distribution site, the more reliable. The more popular the software program is in its category, the more it deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Even ignoring the fallacy of popularity as reliability, I'm not arguing that it's not a reliable source, but rather that it's not an independent source. As per Pavlor's above, you're not addressing the issue that's being brought up, but arguing against something that's not being said. A software host is not independent of the software it hosts. Reliability is not the concern, and not the issue as to why the article's subject fails to show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The software hosting sites are independent of the software. They did not create the software, and they don't own the software. No amount of verbal jousting on your part changes that fact. That again shows your cluelessness on how software is reviewed and distributed. It does not benefit a software hosting site to give dishonest reviews. In fact, quite the opposite. The site loses credibility if it does that, and people can go to other, more honest, sites to download the software, and to learn about the software. The popularity of a software hosting site is partially dependent on this. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Most people only attack other editors when the argument they present is too weak to stand on its own. Something you might want to keep in mind when you accuse me of being "clueless" because you quite obviously are unfamiliar with my knowledge here. What you're saying, that the standard for independence is ownership/authoring of software, is both patently wrong, and contradicts both Wikipedia and scholarly views on what an independent source is. You need not own something to have a conflict of interest, that's another degree of independence, but not the only one. This is not "verbal jousting", it is a basic principle of citation. You'll notice that the Wikipedia article on Independent sources does not make the narrow claim you do, but rather says that the sources are "unconnected". WP:IS also refutes your narrow claim. If there is a meaningful relationship whereby one party affects the other, it is not an independent source. The software and the software host both have a relationship by which each stands to benefit from the other. A software host is not independent of the software they host. This is a fact, trying to arbitrarily limit the definition of an independent source does not change this, though I welcome to you cite anything that supports your narrow definition, but given that I've cited a few things that contradict you, I find this to be unlikely. Any site loses credibility if they give dishonest reviews; like your initial comment about reliability, that's irrelevant to the issue of independence to the material. I'm not suggesting that "I'm right and you're wrong and there's nothing that can be done about it", but please show something to back up your claims as I have, and stop with the "verbal jousting" that you accused me of. - Aoidh (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your point of view is too narrow. Computer magazines since at least the early 90s bundled software with every issue ("cover-disks" or later "cover-CDs"). This certainly doesn´t make them less reliable or independent source for Wikipedia. Hosting software on the magazine page is only culmination of this trend. Pavlor (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My "point of view is too narrow" based on what, other than your opinion? There is a relationship between the two by which both stand to profit, creating a potential for a conflict of interest. I'm not saying there is a conflict of interest and the host is inflating its opinion to profit as a software host, but that potential is there. That relationship exists, that's not even a question, there is a relationship between the two, and thus the host is not independent of the software. It's not a narrow "if you didn't write the software code you're independent of it", that's completely out-of-sync with any definition of an independent source, which is a source which has a relationship by which it lacks the appearance of neutrality in its comments towards the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is always some "conflict of interest". Take advertisments in paper magazines as an example - following your point of view, we should discard use of any computer magazines, because they get money from adverts about software/hardware they may review. Hosting software is quite harmless in comparison... Pavlor (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  04:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Pavlor has provided articles in Chip and PC Welt and 83.135.228.180 has provided an article in c't that provide significant coverage of PDF24 Creator, which passes Notability. I agree with Pavlor and Timeshifter's arguments that these websites are independent of the subject. PDF24 Creator is freeware so the download websites are not acting as distributors for commercial software where there would be a financial conflict of interest. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 March 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.