Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShieldUI


 * 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. If you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ShieldUI

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After some fairly extensive searching and a contested PROD tag, I am still unconvinced that this software is sufficiently notable. Much of the text currently present in the article is referenced to the company's own website; other sources are written by the article's creator (if I'm correct in assuming that "d.johnson.dave" and "User:David.johnson.dave" are the same person). This is just a list of search results. There seems to be very little significant coverage in reliable, non-primary, non-COI sources available.  Super Mario  Man  22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of rushing to delete the article, how about some guidelines to improve it. The link to stackoverflow was meant to verify that many people are using this software. If that does not make it notable I do not know what will. I also included links to html5 report, which is a secondary source. All links linking to shieldiu page are meant to explain more about the company. Also, in addition to the HTML5 report page, here are some more reources. Let me know if you want me to add these to the article as well: http://www.einpresswire.com/article/176985832/shield-ui-launches-free-online-service-reportivo-for-generating-and-sharing-interactive-charts http://shieldui.blogspot.com/2013/12/shield-ui-charts-variety-range-bar-chart.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3d5myIDBoc all these from users not affiliated to shieldui in any way. Let me know if there is need to add any more content or alter the article.

Additionally. This article, and the resources cited are not much different than this for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infragistics

This article uses the same types of resources and references. Some of the links do not even work. The others are paid publications. I do not see how this establishes any more of a usability credibility. I believe I have supplied more than enough resources and forum threads to verify the notability of the entry. Deleting it would constitute a double standard, and I believe should not be allowed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David.johnson.dave (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your proposed new sources:
 * The Einpresswire article is a press release that seems to be reporting on a completely different product – not the ShieldUI suite. It is also written by a ShieldUI employee, which effectively makes it a primary source (in that it is not independent of the article's subject). How, therefore, is it by someone "not affiliated to ShieldUI in any way"?
 * Blogger is a self-publishing platform, and unreliable for the purposes of verification. YouTube is rarely acceptable as a source due to copyright issues; additionally, as with Blogger, its reliability is suspect.
 * The recurrent problem, which these candidate sources illustrate further, is the lack of significant coverage in secondary sources beyond the one HTML5 link (which offers a detailed product description, but not much in terms of an analysis).
 * Regarding your point about the Infragistics article, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Super Mario  Man  21:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The article, which I referred to (infra) is incomplete, with broken links and lacking. Yet you say that "other stuff exists" and leave it in place. At the same time, you want to remove this article, which is totally comparable. This is a double standard. James D. Hunt, cited in the Einpresswire is not in any way affiliated with shieldui. Shieldui contacts are listed below the name, just for informative purposes. This is how they have structured it and is beyond control. However, this person is not affiliated with the company. You wanted additional sources from people not affiliated with the company, and when I did provide them, you said that you will not accept them. I see nothing constructive in this. You even do not want to accept html5 report, by specifying "not much in terms of an analysis". Yet, your own article on secondary sources specifies "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." This makes the entry totally legal and admissible. The way I see it, you want to remove a perfectly legal article, based on assumptions and cancellations of valid sources. Article, which content is brief, to the point, with no marketing involved, just for the purpose of contributing to your site. I will not waste any more time in a biased discussion, with no clear rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.johnson.dave (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I take your point about Einpresswire – sorry, seeing the name at the foot of the article I had assumed that it was referring to the writer. Putting the matter of authorship to one side, however, there is still the problem of the lack of detailed content that is specifically about the ShieldUI product. If the HTML5 article really is the only decent secondary source that this topic has to recommend it, then it is too dependent on primary sourcing for the purposes of demonstrating noteworthiness. With respect, I do not think a comparison to the Infragistics article is particularly helpful to your argument. Even a basic Google search for "Infragistics" reveals (at least for me) many book and recent news sources (something that this topic is lacking). Regardless of the shortcomings of the article, any AfD influenced by concerns surrounding the notability of the Infragistics topic would most likely result in the article being kept – the referencing can be improved via normal editing.  Super Mario  Man  13:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think leaving this article will bring more goods than bads for the Wikipedia readers. It is being referred to in product comparison and other pages that have the sole purpose of helping the users pick a product among other products - there is no advertising, marketing, proclamations or any other promotional material in these pages. Vdg990 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Vdg990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I cannot find any RSes that have in-depth discussions of the package so that it meets notability guidelines. The problem is that I can't find those for most software packages. Perhaps we need guidelines for code. The rules are clear though: it's not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2013 (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.