Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComicRack

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ComicRack

Recreation of speedy deleted material. Non-notable web content. Smashville^BONK! 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not encyclopedic. Decoratrix (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I don't see how this entry that I started is any different than say the entry for Foobar2000 that serves a similar function for a different medium, or the entries for other comic book viewers that have been left alone in Wikipedia. If it is not encyclopedic enough, perhaps some guidance on how to make it more so without doing original research would help me.

Edit, I am having trouble finding clear cut guidelines as to what the criteria for software should be. Notability could be established perhaps by the number of reviews, or number of users, meeting an obvious need? I realize that just because someone made something it wouldn't be notable by itself, but ComicRack is very much advanced recreation of a comic viewer which didn't really exist as a need until relatively recently. CDisplay which has an article seems to be a dead project, and with the rising downloading of comic materials, e-comic distribution by the publishers, and media coverage of torrent tracker shut downs, The programs used to manage and read the comics seems notable to me. Lastchild (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this entry. Although I agree that it may not be very "encyclopedic" as it is now, I would propose to ammend it and correct it, not to delete it. It is as useful as any other entry dedicated exclusively to a particular program or piece of software. In particular regarding this topic, this program is among the best and more versatile comic viewers available and will help a number of Wikipedians understand the concept of an electronic comic viewer which is more and more neccesary with today's surge in this media. In this sense it is useful for Wikipedia and I propose to keep it alive. Thank you in advance. Rzgofv (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the first and only edit of this user. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic and not notable. Also, does anyone else smell something funny? I think... yes, that's it, it smells like socks! Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using personal attacks to avoid the subject under discussion is bad form and less appropriate than the accusations being thrown around. I am not a sock. I'm aware of this debate because I use the program. Software inclusion is apparently under discussion at Wikipedia right now, and if this article is to lead to some further conclusion on what should be included and what shouldn't be, great. Meanwhile, the only thing that stinks around here is Master's contribution to the discussion. Lastchild (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - As the unlucky guy who created the "in one day deleted - no discussion about it" original ComicRack entry, I just want to add my 2 cents. ComicRack is a notable program in the context of the base article: the Comic Book Archive file format. What good is an article about a file format without any link to any software that can handle it? ComicRack is the only one mentioned in that article that is free/actively supported/has an active user base/is current (last release a few days ago). The other ones are CDisplay (abandoned - author gone) / CDisplayEx (semi abandoned - last release 2. Sep 2006) / Comical (also semi abandoned - last release March 2006). Further is ComicRack not simply another sequential image viewer, but really a specialized program for the mentioned file format. To my knowledge it is also the only one optimized for Tablet PCs. It has been reviewed by Lifehacker, Softpedia and various blogs. Of course it is a piece of software targeted at a very small user base, so you won't google a list of references like for a generic image viewer like ACDSee, a commercial piece of software well presented in wikipedia. So if the current politics of wikipedia are removing such articles, then you have to remove a lot of software related entries, many of them a lot less "noteworthy" than ComicRack and may end up with a small list of articles about very popular, mostly commercial software programs. I agree, that the current entry isn't much more than a stub and should be expanded. Solano2k (talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Author appears to be using sock puppets. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course is not true. I guess doing something in wikipedia leads to conflicts. If I would be a Socket Puppet how smart is it to state that "I created the original speed deleted article". --Solano2k (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Solano2k's arguments about parity between file format and supporting softwares. ThuranX (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ComicRack is an innovative software, with different ideas for browsing, organizing and viewing comic files. More, it is free. It is aimed for hobbysts and collectors. Soon it will be a reference on good and free software. I think good softwares, good initiatives and good ideas must have an entry on Wikipedia. Specially when they are still growing, not dead (like CDisplay) or dormant (like Comical). Last, but not least, the original stub article was expanded, and now looks much more like a standard Wikipedia article. I expanded it. Clayton.Aguiar (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) — Clayton.Aguiar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Please note that despite the sockpuppetry and whatever else is going on here, no one has provided any reliable secondary sources. --Smashville^BONK! 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed for a software application to get listed into Wikipedia? What are the reliable secondary sources? Does Comical (software), ComicBookDS or iComicsOnSale (all are members of the Comics Software category) have them? Or have they just slipped in under the radar? I'm just curious as I do not see any rational on what makes these entries stay and the ComicRack article go. Any hints on what can be changed or argued to put ComicRack on the same level of notability as these entries is welcome.--Solano2k (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, there's nothing notable about them either. --Smashville^BONK! 03:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really have an opinion on the afd, but your article, Solano2k, reads a bit like ad-copy, while those other articles do not. If you want an article about your software to have a chance around here, it would be best to write something more encyclopedic. --Watchsmart (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web content--Hu12 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although arguments such as "not encyclopedic" and "author appears to be using sock puppets" are not appropriate reasons for deletion, I can't find enough independent coverage of this program to convince me that the general notability guideline is satisfied. Maybe in a few months time, if people start taking notice of it. —SMALL JIM 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to concur with the delete opinions here. Even the article at Comic Book Archive file is a stub looking for a merge candidate to my eye. Hiding T 23:44, 1 January 2008 (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.