- 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 no consensus. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Ecto (software)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ecto (software) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)- @
Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f.
WP:SELFPUB.
Weak deleteper HA. Aaron Liu ( talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)- @
Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:
- There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ( [5], [6], [7] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
- Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
- The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
- The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.
- I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)- Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
- WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
- This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.
- Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:
- @
Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f.
WP:SELFPUB.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is not a community recognized WP:SNG. It's only an essay and doesn't appear to be widely vetted as it doesn't look like it's linked from any guidelines pages. Graywalls ( talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
Graywalls NSOFT seems basically like consensus that reviews count towards SIGCOV, which is also found in many other places. The magazine feature isn't a review either.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- NSOFT is practically meaningless. I believe a sign of essay having been vetted or having some level of consensus is when it is actually linked from guidelines. This isn't the case with NSOFT. It's essentially one user's original research. If you see the authorship, you'll see overwhelming majority is written by one user.
Graywalls (
talk)
23:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- What about the magazine feature?
- What leads you to think that reviews from RSes don't count towards GNG?
- You make it sound like the essay is just a user's unreviewed personal opinion with some copyedits, which is not the case. Only 70% of the page was written by that one person, and discussions like Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)#RfC: On Software Notability. indicate many more eyes and support.
-
Aaron Liu (
talk)
14:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've looked at the Networkworld piece. It's an opinion piece. Since software is a product and
WP:NSOFT is not written into
WP:SNG,
WP:NCORP applies and I don't believe it meets that threshold. I'm maintaining my position that this article should not exist.
Graywalls (
talk)
21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how being in the opinion column disqualifies it from meeting
WP:PRODUCTREV. Reviews are like by definition opinion pieces.
WP:SECONDARY even says
A book review too can be an opinion
.
And again, what about the magazine? Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC) - So what if it is an opinion? If every piece of news was a statement of fact, news would be boring. A reliable secondary source has a mix of facts and opinion, like this source. Even
NYT has a section for opinions. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 11:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)- A professional review by the magazine staff or a column/opinion piece with largely no editorial control are different. A section titled "opinion" is likely the former and shouldn't really count for notability. Software is aproduct. WP:NSOFT is just an essay, so the appropriate guidance on the use of reviews for software is
WP:PRODUCTREV
Graywalls (
talk)
22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. That said, do you agree that the review qualifies for GNG under PRODUCTREV?
Aaron Liu (
talk)
00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have not thoroughly evaluated all of them. Applematter looks quite bloggy. The determination of notability anchoring
WP:RS can be tough. You could have several foodie friends build a blog and have titles like publisher, editor in chief and such and restaurant and bar articles based on those things have always been a point of contention about all these restaurant articles on Wikipedia. Considering that publication itself doesn't have a Wikipedia article and is not regarded as an authoritative source in other publications, I'm inclined to say its contribution to notability cred is slim.
Graywalls (
talk)
00:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- See above. I don't think Applematters, Reviewasaurus and NewcommReview count or are more than just blogs. However, NetworkWorld is very big, and again, the magazine. Other sources aren't the question here. Aaron Liu ( talk) 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have not thoroughly evaluated all of them. Applematter looks quite bloggy. The determination of notability anchoring
WP:RS can be tough. You could have several foodie friends build a blog and have titles like publisher, editor in chief and such and restaurant and bar articles based on those things have always been a point of contention about all these restaurant articles on Wikipedia. Considering that publication itself doesn't have a Wikipedia article and is not regarded as an authoritative source in other publications, I'm inclined to say its contribution to notability cred is slim.
Graywalls (
talk)
00:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. That said, do you agree that the review qualifies for GNG under PRODUCTREV?
Aaron Liu (
talk)
00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- A professional review by the magazine staff or a column/opinion piece with largely no editorial control are different. A section titled "opinion" is likely the former and shouldn't really count for notability. Software is aproduct. WP:NSOFT is just an essay, so the appropriate guidance on the use of reviews for software is
WP:PRODUCTREV
Graywalls (
talk)
22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how being in the opinion column disqualifies it from meeting
WP:PRODUCTREV. Reviews are like by definition opinion pieces.
WP:SECONDARY even says
- I've looked at the Networkworld piece. It's an opinion piece. Since software is a product and
WP:NSOFT is not written into
WP:SNG,
WP:NCORP applies and I don't believe it meets that threshold. I'm maintaining my position that this article should not exist.
Graywalls (
talk)
21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- NSOFT is practically meaningless. I believe a sign of essay having been vetted or having some level of consensus is when it is actually linked from guidelines. This isn't the case with NSOFT. It's essentially one user's original research. If you see the authorship, you'll see overwhelming majority is written by one user.
Graywalls (
talk)
23:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep looking at the sources turned up by others, appears to just meet WP:GNG. Mdann52 ( talk) 08:30, 17 June 2024 (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.