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. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3dpaintbrush[edit]

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

3D graphics software, no assertion of notability, developer is redlinked, no third party, non-trivial sources. 2 says you, says two 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added references : Zoso 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
Weak delete. This is a news peace in Digit (magazine), no editorial comment. The stuff on informer.com is the very definition of WP:SPIP. Blogs, more primary sources and youtube videos don't really count towards establishing WP:N. Pcap ping 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the developer being redlinked is particularly relevant to the discussion but I agree with the sentiment to delete, and agree with 2's comment that there's a lack of good sources out there. I find Pcap's reasoning sound. I find some things in google news: [1] but they seem to mostly be recycled press releases. The articles seem to have only made minor changes to the formatting, suggesting that they essentially passed on a press release as-is. This hardly qualifies as a reliable source for establishing notability. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zoso 11:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC) : Thanks for the comments. Regd informer.com, refer http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/informer.com . Getting listed on pages owned by Google and Rhino3D doesnt count in establlishing notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
- Alexa internet is well-known for boosting the rank of sites used by SEO people. (I'm actually working on that article.) informer.com has no discernible editorial policy or "about us" page on the staff. Pcap ping 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pcap about the editorial policy. As far as I'm concerned, traffic rank (for which Alexa is just a coarse proxy) is totally irrelevant for establishing reliability of a source. I would consider traffic rank as perhaps a minor factor in considering the notability of a website, but not the reliability of the website as a source for establishing notability or sourcing any content of a wikipedia article. Alexa's #2 and #3 websites are Facebook and Youtube, both websites with mostly user-generated content, generally not valid as reliable sources except in certain very unusual cases. Cazort (talk) 23:40, 4 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.