Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diffractor (software)

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. Consensus is that the sourcing provided does not meet reliability or independence standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffractor (software) edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software with no coverage in multiple reliable sources. References are either primary sources or websites with unclear reliability. nearlyevil 665 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first source is misleading because the subject is not freeware. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually the author of this software. I edited the article to be clear this software is Freemium (by adding the word freemium). It was free at the time the referenced article was written. How else can I help? User:Kernal-rom June 15, 2021

The most appropriate policy in this case is WP:NSOFT. As you can see, rather informal sources are allowed for open source freeware software. As this is not the case, I can only advice looking for better sources, like printed books, scholar articles. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (creator of page) I have added couple of more references. Boreloaf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it got worse now. Adding too many references to support a single claim is a bad practice, see WP:REFBOMB. The quality matters, not the quantity. For example, the FotoHits reference is not even an article. Only one of the reviews looks like a review. The others just describe how to use the software. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability criteria. Secondary sources with any significant coverage look like one man blogs and are promotional in tone. Sasquatch t|c 02:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current sourcing is very poor from a reliability and independence standpoint, and searching suggests that there isn't much better available. Simply just non-notable software. Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is not notable. All sources are either just hosting content provided by the developer of the said software (GitHub, offcial site, forum listings), are not sufficiently in-depth or are not reliable (personal blogs). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.