Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindView (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Steve Smith (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MindView

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

Little indication of notability. The article's sources appear superficially good but there isn't actually much there. There's a stack of reprints of press releases. TechWalls doesn't appears to be a particularly reliable source (mostly a repository for affiliate links, in fact). MatchWare are a member of the Business Disability Forum, so these sources are not independent. One applies for Digital Accessibility Centre accreditation, so that source exists not because of notability but because the manufacturer paid for it. What's left? PC Mag reviewed it; some chap on TechRepublic wrote a HOWTO. I don't feel this meets the standard of notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. The way the article is written isn't a reason to delete it, rather it's a reason to improve it. We have articles for notable subjects, and this is a notable subject based on the sources that are present. I didn't even need to check what else is out there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: In 2012, I determined that there weren't many good sources and that has clearly changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cannot vote (revision note) Hello, I am sorry about the mess that I caused, I didn't realize that the news releases that I used were not independent. I added some new references to help with the lack of independent sources, but I am not sure if I added too many. I am still feeling out what is appropriate. Reriksenus (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can - well, no-one votes, but you are as free to comment on the deletion discussion as anyone. Don't forget that if you have a conflict of interest it is appropriate to mention it; especially, that paid editing must be disclosed. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Macworld, PC Mag and PC World look like good RS. Enough to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also one page short review in the German c't magazine 07/2013 (p. 65). Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not convinced by this idea that short reviews in computer magazines suffice. By that metric, given the size of some of the big glossy ones, practically every individual model of hard drive released (say) would come to be notable. To me to stretches the idea that a mention is significant when it seems like the source might have more space to fill every month than material to put in it. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That ct magazine article looks like full page review (behind pay-wall, only thumbnail preview available). I also found this textbook [1] devoting nearly 10 pages to OpenMind (precursor of MindView). Pavlor (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2018 (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.