Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XStoryPlayer


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

XStoryPlayer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Promotional article for unremarkable software. No significant coverage from reliable sources, no indications of notability. Google search on "XStoryPlayer" -wiki shows only 41 unique results - most are primary sources, none are from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To call software "unremarkable", its has to be reviewed by claimer. I very much doubt if above claimer, has actually used the software to validate this claim. The intention of the XStoryPlayer wiki page is to explain what the software entails. Of course one could say it has an promotional side to it. But that could be said about any page that refers to something a company does or makes. Weather or not a product has many google hits should not be deciding factor in this. Independant reliable sources are somewhat chicken and egg. The article itself was created by the company that makes XStoryPlayer, so one could say thats a pretty reliable source. --Asimo912 (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not sources for Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * UncleG, I think you missed Asimo912's point. Asimo912, you should read WP:COI if you are associated with the company.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Asimo912 seems confused about the purpose of Wikipedia and should read Five pillars, WP:Notability and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your software.  It doesn't matter if your software is brilliant or terrible, what matters is whether other people have written about it.  Wikipedia is a compendium of what has been written on a topic by authoritative and impartial people.  It's not a place for publicising new ideas and new products. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. My point is that everything a company makes or does can be considered information to promote a company. "Third party" references are mostly paid for or made by large companies, who have bloggers and journalists on their payroll. The information on the XStoryPlayer wikipage is educational and it would be best if the readers themself decide how to judge this information. If people decide it is not accurate or not representive of the actual product I gladly accept their opinion. But it seems to me that currently the topic is judged on it being new and therefore not noteworthy.--Asimo912 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * &hellip; despite the fact that you've been clearly told that it's the sourcing, and lack and unreliability and non-independence thereof, that it's being judged on. Readers don't judge, by the way.  Editors do, and questioning the existence, depth, and provenances of sources is a major part of the whole editorial process.  If you're going to make daft arguments that only people who agree with you are qualified to judge, or that people are addressing something else when they say that sourcing is their focus and directly address it, you won't rebut the argument that there are no reliable and independent sources for this subject, and you'll lose the argument per deletion policy.  It's your choice, of course, but you've now been told that it's a foolish one.  Cite independent and reliable sources from which an article can be made, or lose the argument.  Sources!  Sources!  Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that placing a topic on wikipedia has also risks, namely that other people can edit it and say that its not accurate or misleading. But to simply state you want to have it deleted because you think it is not noteworthy, seems a bit strange to me. This way only large companies can have their products explained on wikipedia. I am simply making a wiki page that's a starting point for other editors to work with. But I guess I have to wait a few years when I have lots of "hits on google", and then make a entry for it in the wikipedia.--Asimo912 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could stop with these daft arguments that people have all tried before, and that get short shrift around here because of their well-known fallacies, and do what I just said was in your best interests to do. It's the way to get the article kept.  You'll only have yourself to blame if you fail to do what you've been told is the right thing to do and the outcome that you were told would be the result then happens.  Now cite those sources.  Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I understood just fine. You didn't, however.  This isn't about conflict of interest.  It's about not understanding what reliable sources and independent sources are, for the purposes of writing in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of coverage in third party, reliable sources. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me   12:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources Shii (tock) 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I failed to find any secondary sources I could call reliable. In fact, I'm not sure whether among the sources I found there are any secondary at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be helpfull if above critics could suggest improvements for the wiki page XStoryPlayer. Deletion should be last resort in my opinion. I like to add that articles are now judged on how many "google hits" they have. It would better if editors also read the actual article instead of imitating a google bot.--Asimo912 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Asimo912 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Deletion is the last resort and this is exactly the case as this article's survival is less probable then that of snowball in hell. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do I get the feeling I just entered the Ministry of Silly Walks (Silly_Walk), and it appears my "silly walk" is judged just not silly enough. It reminds me of the Dutch post offices 15 years ago.--Asimo912 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "sources" Shii (tock) 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quoting from Verifiability:
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is not unduly self-serving; It is not
 * it does not involve claims about third parties; It does not
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; It does not
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; There is not
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources. It is not
 * Therefore there is no reason to not keep the XStoryPlayer page.--Asimo912 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite because WP:NOTABILITY is also an important aspect and that calls reliable sources that are Independent of the subject. The sources you mention would work for verifiability but that is not enough to keep an article. To be blunt this article will be almost certainly be deleted unless Independent sources are found.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But what would be an independent source? A magazine, a forum, someone who has written other wiki pages? Should these reliable sources also have independent reliable sources to support them?--Asimo912 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Independent means that the source is independent of the subject, ie not from the company that makes the software, a developer of the software or PR agency promoting the software etc. It does not mean that there needs to be independent coverage of each individual source. That is not to say that these types of sources are always bad but they are not enough to make the article meet notability guidelines. Also another isssue is that WP:IRS also calls for sources with a history of fact checking and accuracy so a forums are almost always not considered to be reliable since almost anyone could make a form post. It is also the same case for other wikis since any registered user can post at an open Wiki. A magazine could be be reliable but it would depend on which magazine it is. For some more assistance here is a list of sources considered reliable, situational, and unreliable, for video game articles WikiProject Video games/Sources. I think the best course of action is for you to find some sources and post them here so then can be evaluated.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to take a look at that--Asimo912 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability isn't even claimed. No sources, no notability, nothing to write home about or in an encyclopaedia about QU TalkQu 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, especially per QU above. No claim to notability and the article's creator obviously has serious WP:COI issues. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2012 (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.