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. LFaraone 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FireCMD[edit]

FireCMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources cited are all WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. As this is a new product apparently released just 2 weeks ago, the lack of sources is unsurprising. This product may become notable in the future but it isn't yet and Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjurers Encrypter. Msnicki (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Softpedia may call that a review, but I don't. All they've done is assign 1 to 5 stars without explaining how or why and without even signing the review with a byline. That's not serious review at all. Alternativeto is even less useful: The "like" votes may well be from the developers friends; there's no way to tell. It's certainly not reliable. And, yes, there is point in deleting an article that does not meet the notability standard, even if we think it might meet it soon: The point is that we have guidelines and we agree to cooperate and follow them. The guidelines ask that we ascertain there are sources now. We do not guess about the future. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. If additional sources appear a month from now, the article can easily be reinstated without prejudice. It can also be WP:USERFIED so you can work on it while searching for sources. Msnicki (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the website http://alternativeto.net/software/firecmd/about/ says the entry was added by "Brainasoft" (the company name). The above discussion doesn't present any new information addressing notability. TEDickey (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Superdownloads is not a reliable source. Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Which kind of sources can be considered as reliable sources? The site has got Google PR 6. Nickjames90 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Superdownloads doesn't have any meaningful reputation for accuracy or editorial oversight. They're basically a catalog site and vendor of free downloads. This has nothing to do with popularity or PageRank. For more, please see WP:RS. Msnicki (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did you determine this measure of "meaningful reputation" exactly? It looks like a "real" review site to me, complete with local content. This is not Softpedia. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're a catalog site and vendor of free downloads because (in case you couldn't tell by looking) that's what they say they are. From their about page, "Operates in Brazil since 1998, as a large catalog of software with more than 30,000 available for download from games, demos, shareware and freeware." They're no more reliable than a product description on Amazon, which we also do not accept as a suitable to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you what they were, so I'm not sure why you're answering some other question. But to that topic, download.com is also a "catalog site and vendor of free downloads", yet their reviews are CITEd all over the place. So back to my actual question: by what measure is a download.com review "good" and Superdownloads one "bad"? Can you offer any cogent metric? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The metric (at least, for me) is that they shouldn't be in the business of vending (even for free) the stuff they're reviewing. But also, I would point to the guidelines. To me, Superdownloads appears to be an WP:SPS: "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." I certainly understand that some editors might interpret the guidelines differently, but this is how I would call it. Msnicki (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me the reliablility of the superdownloads.com site is undetermined. We don't know if it provides editorial oversight into the selection of software for review. It might or might not be. If there were other somewhat decent sources and this might tip the balance, then it might be worthwhile to post at the RS/N for an evaluation. But given that this is the only potential reliable source scraped up so far, even if it were to be deemed reliable, there's no other source to go with it. -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Superdownloads does not appears to be a WP:SPS to me. I read some reviews and it appears that reviews are written by editorial staff, rather than users. Nickjames90 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate reviews aren't 100% positive. Find a review anywhere on that site where they identify flaws in anything. This is a catalog site in the business of offering downloads so of course everything is wonderful. I'll say again: These are no more reliable than the product descriptions on Amazon. Like Whpq, I don't exactly know how their reviews are generated but no way is this a publication with clear editorial oversight. Msnicki (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, they write positive reviews. But that does not mean that Superdownloads is not reliable. They do comparisons with other products. It can be only said not reliable in the case if their positive reviews are misleading and they write points about the product that are not true. Nickjames90 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing truth and reliability. They could be reporting things truthfully but that does not make them a reliable source. A reliable source is one with a reputation and editorial oversight, no conflict of interest and, in the case of a review, the ability to tell both sides, both the positive and the negative. I don't think anyone doubts that Amazon's product descriptions are true but that doesn't make them a reliable source, either. Do you see the difference? Msnicki (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon product descriptions are created by the users(the seller) and not by the editors of Amazon. But Superdownloads reviews seems to be created by editors and not by the users. You are 100% right that a good review should also cover the negative side but that does not make Superdownloads a non-reliable source. Comparatively the reviews which tell about both the sides can be considered as a better or more reliable source. We can compare a download.com review and Superdownloads review and can easily say that download.com review is more reliable than a Superdownloads review but we cant say that Superdownloads review is not reliable just because it does not show the negative side. Nickjames90 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, you still think they're a WP:RS and I don't so I've posted the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Superdownloads.com.br. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that the images in the Superdownloads review are the same ones as used on the developer's site? How do we know they even installed and ran this product before writing the review? I think they just paraphrased whatever the developer said, copied his screenshots and called it good. If this site is promising 30K downloads, it's obviously not about searching out only the very best. It's about having more content than anyone else, even if most of it is indiscriminate. If the whole point is merely lots of content, one quick way to generate it is with paid website content writers, e.g., here, where you can buy it by the word, hour or page. Superdownloads is in Brazil, where labor rates may be cheap enough to allow them to employ an army of freelance writers furiously scribbling pages as fast as possible. Msnicki (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then again (as in more than one of the previous download-sites mentioned), the Superdownloads page may have been placed by the Brainasoft developer TEDickey (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got your point. Even considering Superdownloads as a reliable source, it is not enough to establish notability. Nickjames90 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2013 (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.
More