Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Adblock


 * 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. The keep votes are mostly all out of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; please do review that and base your comments on policy for future discussions. NW ( Talk ) 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple Adblock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Software which is only in beta realease yet, and which has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources. Fails our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Today many software products are distributed actively, while they are still in beta. The fact that the product is in beta, means that it is in a development stage, where users can give their input and form a given product. Who knows, today a product might remain in the beta development stage, like gmail was for many years.
 * Keep, Why would a product not be submitted to wikipedia, because it is in beta ?

About reliable independent sources, then it is stated on the webpage that the product has been tested with the distribution sites softpedia.com and hotlib.com. Off cause being a freeware program Simple Adblock has not yet been in the newspapers, but a quick google search shows that many people in the blogging sphere is writing about the program.

So, just to summarize, I don't find that the Simple Adblock page should be deleted. The information on the page is up-to-date. Off cause in time the article will probably grow and gather more depth. --Jeanclau (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notable article that is interesting to read marygillwiki (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being an "interesting" article is not grounds for inclusion. -- Kinu t /c  22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi, I originally added the article after trying out Simple Adblock. I got it recommended through a forum and it is the best adblocker I tried so far and I am sure it has thousands of users. So I was surprised not to find it in Wikipedia and thought I would share its goodness in an informative way. The SW is very mature and just because the makers don't advertise much about it (they are probably coders) I don't see why it can not be in Wikipedia. At least I tried to keep the article simple and serious. The modifications done later also appears useful - at least I learned something I didn't know before.
 * Comment I personally won't be using this product, because I will not use Internet Explorer. However, I would like to point out to supporters of this article that it is not the quality of the product that is in question. It is the notability. This needs to be established as per Wikipedia guidelines. Reliable third party sources are needed to establish this. Blogs, I'm afraid, count for nothing. Nor does personal experience, for obvious reasons. Please sign posts with four ~ things, like this Peridon (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that this product is notable. Existence is not notability. -- Kinu t /c  18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have updated the article with two links to awards from downloads sites, who have evaluated the product --Jeanclau (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC) — Jeanclau (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't see how these satisfy WP:RS. -- Kinu t /c  18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't !vote twice, you already gave your "keep" above, repeating it gives a skewed impression to a casual reader of this debate. And these are not awards, these are ratings, and pretty worthless ones at that. HotLib seems to give nothing but 5-star ratings if they rate at all. Download 3000 also seems to be very easy in giving away 5 stars (in my random check, everything gets five stars...) Fram (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It may very well be the best ad blocker available today. But there is no coverage about it in reliable soruces that I can find and as such, it fails to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, With all due respect for keeping a high level of quality in Wikipedia and the impressive energy put into preserving it by users in this discussion I feel there is a bit of |Chicken or the egg dilemma here. Someone has to be the first serious source for a new object or idea, and I think there is good reason to believe this is trustworthy and serious project based on the many user comments on the net. After all the non-centralized anarchic user control and contribution are what makes Wikipedia trustworthy. My vote goes to keep this article (or I would not have put it there in the first place) but I respect your guidelines and I am prepared to add it again, when it becomes "known enough" for Wikipedia. zippiezop (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I understand your sentiment, you are wrong: Wikipedia may never be the first serious source: we are a compilation of information from other, older serious sources (see WP:V and WP:RS for more info on this). I do agree with your final statement though: deletion of this article now does not mean that Simple Adblock will never have an article here, just that it still fails our guidelines for the moment. Fram (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It's very clearly non-notable. Cannot find any third-party coverage, and by the article's own admission, it's "new". Haakon (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's worth noting, I think, that all the keep votes so far are from fresh users. Haakon (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't meet notability standards, and unlike the mother product, it appears to be borderline advertising.--WngLdr34 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It does not appear to be notable at this point. No significant coverage by reliable sources.   GB fan  talk 19:27, 24 September 2009 (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.