Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinBuilder


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @537  · 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WinBuilder

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )



Delete No evidence of notability. This article was tagged for notability in January 2007 and for references in February 2008. Although both tags have since been removed and replaced, removed and replaced again, independent reliable sources have never been provided. My searches also fail to provide evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered in de:PC Welt and in a self-pub book  at a first glance. Gets more mentions in reliable sources  , usually by itself, but also with BartPE and VistaPE. Also this and this are independent coverage; even if self-pub, they are from professional sources. Also covered in the Russian version of CHIP (magazine), , pp.3-5 in the pdf (38-40 in the issue). Editor's review on CNET download page , but the reviewer is pretty clueless, as the CNET reviewers usually are about anything non-trivial. Also covered in ComputerWissen, a lesser know German magazine. It also appears covered in print in c't magazine, see  . I'll see if I can find more. Pcap  ping  16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have conominated VistaPE because it's just a script for this tool. Pcap ping  16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I managed to find the product mentioned in passing in a few press releases. The above sources look like they're self-published or press releases too. Seems to be notable in its (very obscure) field but I can't find any sources to back this up. If someone finds some better ones I will change my vote. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is de:PC Welt, the German version of PC World a press release? This isn't even made by a company, so I can't find any press releases about it. Pcap ping  18:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree this might not have a high notability/visibility, but there are several third party coverage and the simply fact that it is one of the few methods to create Windows Live CDs also gives it a certain notability. At the very least merge this to the Live CD page.--SF007 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Firstly, I have checked the links given by Pohta_ce-am_pohtit (who signs as "Pcap"). Apart from doubt about the quality of some of the sources, most of them give only one passing reference to Winbuilder (or in a few cases two). CNET is a download site which provides WinBuilder for download, and so the fact that it gives a description of WinBuilder is not independent coverage. A couple of the links are to sources giving "how to" instructions which include using WinBuilder, but they do not give substantial coverage. I am puzzled by Pohta_ce-am_pohtit's comments about Press releases, including "isn't even made by a company, so I can't find any press releases about it". If you want to get publicity for something, whether or not you are working for a company, one of the things you can do is send a press release to the press. Since simply copying such a press release, or at the most slightly rewriting it, is a much easier and cheaper way of getting copy that sending journalists out to research stories, news media often uncritically reproduce what they are given: that is what a "press release" is, and, as I said, this can apply whether or not a company is involved.
 * SF007 says "there are several third party coverage", but does not give any examples. Possibly SF007 was just accepting Pohta_ce-am_pohtit's word for it. If so then, in the light of the doubts that Panyd and I have raised about the value of the sources, this is of limited value. If not, then simply saying there is coverage without evidence is not helpful. Also SF007 goes on to say "the simply fact that it is one of the few methods to create Windows Live CDs also gives it a certain notability": no it doesn't, at least not in Wikipedia's sense of "notability". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: Which of the above is a press release again? This software is written by a hobbyist. And tutorials about using it for various purposes are valid coverage for WP:N purposes when they appear in WP:RS. Pcap ping  12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you read what I wrote above carefully you will see that I did not suggest that how-to tutorials are never valid sources, only that these particular tutorials "do not give substantial coverage". JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the various tutorials are in the context of building some specific Windows PE-based project, e.g. a disk with a certain set utilities on it for a given purpose, as opposed to a general tutorial "how to do all the things that WinBuilder can do". Given the scriptable nature of the tool, that should not be surprising (tutorials are generally goal focused). I guess we agree to disagree on this issue. Pcap ping  17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think we disagree on. I simply said that the tutorials "do not give substantial coverage" of WinBuilder, and I don't see that you have disagreed with that. Perhaps what you mean is that you think substantial coverage is not necessary to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, while the tutorials may have steps about other tools (depending on what kind of disk image gets built), they do constitute significant coverage of WinBuilder itself. Pcap ping  20:56, 15 February 2010 (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.