Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Converter


 * 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 / 01:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Universal Converter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about software with no claim to notability; produced by the same company that created News Publisher (see Articles for deletion/News Publisher), and the article is written by the same set of people. It has existed for a couple of years, was speedy tagged soon after creation but the tag was removed with promises of sources. These sources have not appeared, and I'm unable to find anything that remotely meets WP:RS. bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: On first few searches on internet, I could find genuine reviews of the software at:
 * http://www.techhail.com/software/5-free-virtual-printer-software-to-save-printable-docs-in-pdf-format/4462 Ankit (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This does not come close to meeting the requirement that a subject should have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, to have a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * more links found on google search: http://www.completsoft.com/universal-converter.html Ankit (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to review this policy - none of the sources provided so far meets the criteria for a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 and they are not considered by moderators. Ankit (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Universal Converter article is two years old and linked on many wiki pages and has links on internet, can the 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 reliable links. 122.176.130.168 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 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. How long an article has been on Wikipedia is also not relevant to whether the subject of the article is notable or not. --bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same problem with press releases and user created content. I've never seen anyone brazen enough to use a google knol article they created to act as a reliable source for his own software product.   Kuru   (talk)  12:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the significant independent coverage here. Sites like Softpedia simply parrot the developer's description. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing available but self-published reviews, press releases, and download sites - frankie (talk) 02:01, 31 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.