Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimi Visuals

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nimi Visuals

[edit]
Nimi Visuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion via CSD#G11 contested and overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 4. Per that discussion the article is being referred to AfD for further consideration. Shereth 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and remove some of the excessive feature list. Reviewed in [1] PC World, included in 2009 Windows Utility Guide PC Magazine, and [2] Techtree. Pcap ping 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement created by the sole founder/programmer. Conflict of interest aside, there's virtually no coverage outside of a blurb in PC World ("And although fun, Nimi is clearly a work in progress" is the sum of the editorialization, a thorough review it is not). Almost all sources of info on this program are disseminated throughout the web by its creator, though Nimi does appear to have a small (couple of dozen users) following on deviantart. That said, the program itself is pretty neat. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to say, I still can't understand why You are participating so actively in this discussion after other administrators reverted Your delete of this article. Mystery for me. On User count - there are many mirrors available, not only one website dA - from which daily downloads and views count is pretty impressive I think overall. On coverage - which search engine were You using? Did You search on websites related to program category? Besides, I've already updated this article - removing those. In summary I would appreciate editing help instead of plain meaningless discussion. By the way did You heard Ego final recension speech from Ratatouille movie? Cheers Sami Samiwieciekto (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Participating here is the next step. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_4; the tone definitely does not suggest that deleting is not an appropriate possible outcome. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the project and its development is impressive, my rationale for deletion is not a criticism of the project but rather of its coverage and current lack of notability. As ErikHaugen mentioned, it is a routine practice for wiki contributors to follow the process of reviewing an article from one venue to another. In examining coverage I used google, including the web, news, scholar, and books search engines. As for the Ratatouille comparison, I can see why you'd think of it, wikipedia editors can appear snobbish at times. Such appearance is based on experience in dealing with thousands of deletions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I can find on this subject is copies of our article. I would like to see some reliable third party sources on which we can base an encyclopedic article, rather than a glowing endorsement, about this product. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy of what? This is getting ridiculous - what kind of 3rd party sources would You like to base article on? Recently those were forced to be removed as considered unreliable from what I understood. In other words - seriously this isn't helpful at all, words don't cost and it's very easy to critique. Real help appreciated. Samiwieciekto (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copies of our articles is what I have found. See reliable sources for what we consider reliable. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two questions does Your articles meet reliable sources criteria, second don't You have conflict of interest I mean if You state You are the author of those? Assuming that You will reply to those somehow - I think that You are best person to propose look of this entry: I mean if You have idea of something innovative other than software features list, and details - I have a feeling You might come up with some sort of chart or graph - or better music in ogg format.

Anyway, besides, feel free to quote on Mr Chris Pirillo(really great person), LifeHacker.com or at last AskVG.com etc. - those either have world-wide IT recognizability or are certificated IT specialists (like MVP Mr Vishtal Gupta). Of course there are always newspapers sources like PC World and PC Magazine. And of course You can relate to official website if You want to - it's official overall. 

Samiwieciekto (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Wikipedia is not meant to be a reliable source, it is meant to be an encyclopedia. I don't know what you are referring to in regards to conflict of interest. If this software has been the feature of non-trivial coverage in magazines then links would be helpful in establishing notability. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the two sources above with the networkworld and techktree references given at the top of this page. I don't consider the pcmag source to be a good one as it is only a passing mention. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chillum, I agree completely. JBsupreme (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like I'm spending too much time on try to keep encyclopedic entry - which compared to worldwide statistics isn't even worth for - first that deletion now there is same discussion, but without any positive reinforcement not counting very first arguments here. If that's what this whole system basics are I strongly doubt for its long term run in terms of quality and ethical aspect. I've rewritten this entry today - and still so far there are only problems without any self-initiative: just decide whether You want to keep software encyclopedic entries at all and give a rest too other people. Samiwieciekto (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the others here are trying to drag you down or are being unethical; please don't take offense here - nobody is criticizing Nimi Visuals at all or trying to detract from the work you have done on it. It's just the policy that articles satisfy the requirements here: WP:N ErikHaugen (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really see any compelling sources, WP:N. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage, or at least nowhere near enough for notability. Two of the three links seem to be trivial, i.e. to lists with only brief mentions. The third is a very short review - too short to establish notability or to base an article on. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nimi_Visuals&oldid=1070389569"