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. That is, clear consensus sans the additional commentary by the confirmed socks. MuZemike 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PDFFiller[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The Lifehacker & USA Today reviews cited in the articles are not of sufficient depth, and the other review is by Siteguide, a blog, which is not a reliable source. Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous group AfD which included this article --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Also, DemoMarks is a blog. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion : Following this discussion as well as the archived thread, I question the relevancy of the depth of the USA today article, considering the general notability, and general purpose, rather than tech specific nature of the source. The site in question is pretty simple itself, and the question of relevancy and notability seems unrelated to depth of coverage in this instance. The current article's length and level of detail also seems proportional to the notability implied by the brief news story. Unless a better argument is made, i would oppose deletion at this time. SoloCoder 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)— SoloCoder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'm sorry, but depth of coverage does matter when determining notability. From the general notability guideline:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria" (emphasis mine)

where (quoting same page):

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

--Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are just repeating the contents of press releases, there is nothing here which amounts to a non-trivial reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. In the entire history of Pdffiller there was a single press release (Jun 2008) about free services for unemployed. All the press articles date back to 2007. So it would be impossible for the reviews to copy the content of the press release. Press release was never released to begin with.Clearweb

Oppose deletion : disclosure: i'm not a wikipedia expert, and i may be biased as I know someone who works for the company. There are 91,000 hits on google on the word 'pdffiller', it's the first site that lets people fill in non-fillable pdf forms online, there are several thousand people who use it regularly for things like filling in job applications (and the site is free for people who are unemployed), it's pretty clear that it's significant in the sense that it impacts the lives of thousands of people (you're probably much more likely to land a job in mcdonalds if the application is typed instead of handwritten). also a quick look on wikipedia shows many similar companies in this space with no discussion of deletion, and with less blog and news coverage. this seems like it started because originally an insider posted a biased article. but there's no reason to keep punishing them years later at the cost of deleting useful information. if anything the article needs to be fleshed out, and if it's saved i may come back and help with that. -joe silverman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.54.75 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — 166.203.54.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This user has already commented above as User:SoloCoder, as confirmed by checkuser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion : Hello everyone, I run PDFfiller.com - i am a bit dyslexic :) so normally i stay away from this type of discussions.

I have try to communicate directly with CyberCobra. No response. But in this case i feel like i need to forget about my own insecurities and voice my opinion. However byos you may consider it. Few points: 1. We provide free service to unemployed people who are looking fro a job. And they find out about this service on Wikipedia. 2. As far as content of the article and the "notability" claims. PDFfiller is a very simple website. Simplicity is what our users are looking for. It will never get in depth review. There is no depth. But it is very useful to allot of people. Whether we like it or not wikipedia has become a major source of relighble information on all sorts of subjects. People use it to find anything. If you are going after tools then you may as well delete all of them not just the simple once. 3. We did not have anything to do PDFfiller entry on wikipedia. User did it because he want to let other people know that we exist. Try to keep this in mind. I hope this points make cense to you. If you want to communicate with me directly please email to vadim@pdffiller.com Clearweb — Clearweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This user has already commented above as User:SoloCoder, as confirmed by checkuser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The USA Today mention of it makes it notable. There are links to other third party media coverage as well. Dream Focus 14:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That mention is in relative passing along with 6 other products, it's not of sufficient depth (I grant you that story is borderline, but there's no second example of significant, reliable coverage); the same lack of depth applies to the other coverage besides the blog, which is obviously not a RS. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thre is no significant coverage about this. The first two refrences in the article are blogs and the lifehacker and USA Today are just brief mentions. I see no sifnificant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: SoloCoder, the IP address, and Clearweb are all the same person. This is confirmed by checkuser, and supported by behavioral evidence and edits by related addresses. Closing admin, please treat those votes accordingly. I've blocked SoloCoder and the IP address for one week each, and Clearweb indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:47, 9 October 2009 (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.