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. slakr\ talk / 01:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News Publisher[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about electronic publishing software without claim to notability; there are no reliable sources but several self-published ones - looks a little like an effort to market the product, to me. bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Converter, software produced by the same company, article written by the same people. --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

o-oum is a press release, or a simple copy of it; the other link is a blog. Have you had a chance to read WP:RS yet? Kuru (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two blogs and the same PR link as above. Kuru (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access this link at the moment, but the URL seems to indicate it is another blog. I hope you do not mind that I have struck your multiple !votes; one suffices. Kuru (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could access it - it's another blog, and the text is identical to that of the blog.fulldowns.com post. --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a review by the site's editor on the page: http://www.lifetimeupgrades.com/windows/network-internet/browser-tools/news-publisher/ Ankit (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit, you still seem to be showing links to blogs. Have you had an opportunity to read WP:RS yet? Kuru (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the section: Newspaper and magazine blogs on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability it states that "if a news, magazine blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, it is counted as reliable source". Further to it, if the author is the admin or the editor of the site (which is mentioned on top of most of the links present in the article page and here), it strengthens the source's reliability. Now, the links posted by admin/editor of lifetimeupgrades, techbuzzblog, blog.fulldowns.com, butuhdoa.info, etc. and all other links will be counted as a blog section of news, magazine sites? especially when some clearly stated the post as their featured post. I believe we need to make a distinction between a user generated blog on generic blog sites such as blog.co.in, eblooger.com etc, and the dedicated news/blog sites of technical articles such as lifetimeupgrades, techbuzzblog, blog.fulldowns.com Ankit (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to Kuru's judgment here as the more experienced editor, but it is clear that at least techbuzzblog.com and blog.fulldowns.com are inappropriate as sources in this case, because they are simply reprinting the promotional article written by the company itself (the text is also found here, and a lot of it is also on the company homepage). --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have links to the New York Times blog or another significant publication with strong editorial control which extends to blog like sections from their authors, that would be great. Such sites are what that exception is carved out for. I think you're trying to really stretch it at this point, and your conflict of interest as an employee/owner is becoming a problem. If you're seriously asking me to evaluate "fulldowns.com" as a reliable source, then I'm done here. Kuru (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2011 (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