Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WireframeSketcher


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WireframeSketcher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Well... spam. I mean, look at the sources: the company's own website, a press release, something vaguely commercial, an online review, a blog post, a press release and more of the same.

The only vaguely relevant claim to notability is the two awards, except the only sources given are the site of the award-giver. Zero evidence is presented that these awards might have significance outside the entity giving the award and the one receiving it.

Oh, and the article creator is one Peter.severin, which just happens to be the name of the WireframeSketcher's developer, and who just happens to have made three edits to Wikipedia: this article, this and this. - Biruitorul Talk 05:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This software has been around for a couple of years but it doesn't seem as though it has really caught on; in addition, the software didn't actually win the awards listed in the article (follow the link to find out). Also, per nom, it doesn't help that the article was created by the software creator. But speaking of that, nom, it would have been best had you notified Mr. Severin about this AfD (don't worry; I'll do it).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Generally agree with everything Gene93k says, but it does appear that NOTE can be met in this and this. Neither is the NYT, but I'm always inclined to err on the side of keep in these cases. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I said all that; Gene93k then added the debate to other discussions. ;)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 02:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "betanews" - for starters, we need to determine whether that's a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. I do know raymondcamden.com can't be used to attest anything - that site is some guy's blog, and per WP:BLOGS, some guy's blog is never a reliable source. - Biruitorul Talk 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I work at the Eclipse Foundation and organize the Eclipse Community Awards. I have updated the article to point to the a press article about the award winners and a direct link to our announcement. We get approximately 50 nominations for the Developer Tool award that was won by Wireframe Sketcher so it faced stiff competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanSkerrett (talk • contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2013 ‎
 * Weak keep: The article is weak, yet since it's not one of those ridiculous spam claiming that this tool is the best tool ever, I tend to be in favor of keeping it. It would need to be improved to be useful as it's a bit short right now. By looking online for information on Wireframe Sketcher, we can find articles about it so it's not some completely unknown tool. It also seems to be compared quite often to other tools like Balsamiq. Its wikipedia article is not particulary content-heavy either. I think it would be better if both articles had more content. Dyhorus (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, this says nothing about WireframeSketcher, while this is a blog post, and thus not relevant for our purposes, per WP:BLOGS. - Biruitorul Talk 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The 20 Excellent Wireframing Tools for Mobile article on Mashable that you point out is a slideshow and it dedicates slide 11 to WireframeSketcher. Peter Severin (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep Contributing toward notability for this topic are
 * Eclipse community award finalist in 2011 for "Best RCP Application"
 * Eclipse community award finalist in 2013 for "Best Developer Tool"
 * PCWorld online review of the software
 * Sys-con media online review of the software
 * I consider all of these reliable media and in particular there are many Eclipse plugins out there, so the Eclipse community awards are competitive. In addition there are the two more sources that Maury mentioned above; betanews could be reliable, but I cannot tell at this point. I think that for the purposes of notability, the two online reviews count as independent, in-depth treatments from reliable sources. While not in depth, the awards also contribute toward notability. Thus the topic seems to pass general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The article could use improvement and the nom is right to bring up potential COI issues, but the article has no major problems with spam that I can see. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As I've mentioned before, the problem with the "Eclipse Community Awards" is that there's very little mention of them outside the website of the award-giver, meaning we can't really gauge their importance. They sound impressive, but what independent sources confirm their relevance to the field? - Biruitorul Talk 21:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to meet GNG. So I'll err on the side of caution and raise my vote for keep; it needs to add more independent sources as pointed out here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based upon Mark Viking's findings and a bit of clean up done to the article. Surmountable over Delreasons on this one. Mkdw talk 20:01, 7 June 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.