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. Courcelles 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SiteKiosk[edit]

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

I'm not a massive computer person, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but this article uses mostly source from the subject, and a Google doesn't go any further establishing notability. Mat ty.007 17:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable coincidence that the article I made up and updated frequently is accused to use "mostly source from the subject" and I'm officially been accused of having a close relationship with the article's subject... after I started a discussion on Kiosk software and talked to it's major contributor. This is a software product which is used by many users. Could you please explain what kind of "further establishing notability"you're missing? BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references don't establish notability, Google doesn't establish notability, what makes this a stand out example of software? Mat ty.007 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the stand out example of kiosk software. To understand the article you'll necessary need to know kiosk mode/kiosk software. There are not many solutions to prevent vandalism and to secure your public PC (POS, POI, ...) properly. On the other hand there's increased demand for those solutions. With "more than 250,000 copies of SiteKiosk" installed it is one of the most used kiosk software solutions worldwide. I'll try to find more references which aren't too closely connected to the maker of that product. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any material by running a Google search to support notability. No significant coverage by independent sources. May just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did some research and added independent sources to support notability and neutrality. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've used SiteKiosk a number of times to secure kiosks. Some references: http://webconverger.org/blog/entry/SiteKiosk_versus_Webconverger/ http://serverfault.com/questions/186678/siteremote-sitekiosk-alternatives http://lifehacker.com/161071/lock-down-public-terminals-with-sitekiosk http://www.arvutid.ee/en/infokiosks/freestanding-kiosks/infokiosk-ml-730.html . In this case I could see that notability could be a relative thing, and this isn't a highly notable piece of software. But it is (has been?) well known, and certainly isn't a fiction. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One's a blog, one seems to be a forum, another one seems like a blog, and one's selling it. So, none of them pass as reliable sources. Thanks, Matty.007 18:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you please give your opinion on the sources I've added three days ago? BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first added merely uses it as a reference, and doesn't talk about it at all as far as I can see. The book isn't loading for me. The Microsoft one is a promotional thing whereby a customer review is published as far as I can tell. The PrinterOn is again a promotional release, between partners if the article is correct, and also a blog. So, none of these sources are reliable. Thanks, Matty.007 19:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The book is loading. I've also added a Master's thesis. If you don't accept an article on the Microsoft website as reliable and notable source there's something wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to talk computer stuff on wikipedia. If you always expect a Time Magazine frontcover of the article's subject there are not really much notable subjects on wikipedia. Thanks, 79.252.219.179 (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, just for transparency, is this BroncoPfefferminz logged out? Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The Microsoft thing is a customer written (I think) promotional thing trying to get people to use Windows 8. Mat ty.007 14:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that was me. I'm really trying to make you change your mind on the deletion of this article, but it seems kind of hard to get any source that pleases you. For me it's not transparent why this article lacks of notability and reliability (especially after I've added more recources that have no connection to the maker) compared to most of the other articles that deal with software that isn't that prominent. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've given the issues I have with the sources. Anyway, one vote does not a deleted article make... Thanks, Mat ty.007 15:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BroncoPfefferminz... It seems that you are very passionate about this article but the references that I see do not pass WP:RS. There is no doubt that it exists but notability beyond this has not been established. Has is won an award, is it the first one of many, is it indicated by 3rd party sources as the best they have seen... etc... 250,000 users does not make a piece of software notable in and of it self. - Pmedema (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references that pass rule WP:42. They seem to be all published by the company, trivial mentions or unrelated. Gm545 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2014 (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.