Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCExam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Wizardman 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TCExam

TCExam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Spammily written article on a software product, Google news hits are mostly for Testicular Cancer Exam and a couple of PRwires Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Neutral - It can be improved...right now it sounds like an advertisement. Whaatt (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. Nakon 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

-Nakon: This can be improved..for example, I just removed advertisement sounding sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaatt (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I didn't nominate it for deletion just because it was spammy, but because it has unclear notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete as it stands. Article doesn't speak to notability and still seems very much like an advert (even though the "product" is free). Perhaps the relevant contents could be

merged into the Computer-based training article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm the author of the software, so my opinion is not neutral. I respect your opinions but some comments above sounds like written by someone that has personal interest on concurrent commercial software (vendors socket-puppets) or someone that do not understand what a popular or notable software is. I understand that writing an article about my own software is not a good practice but some of the above affirmations are clearly false:
    • > Spammily written article on a software product
      • False, TCExam is not a product but a Free Libre Open Source Software originally designed to help schools and universities in developing countries. The original page only report facts, a simple description of what TCExam is and a list of feature. No advertising or spammy language was used.
    • > Google news hits are mostly for Testicular Cancer Exam and a couple of PRwires
      • False, a Google search for the term TCExam returns about 101,000 pertinent results. Also, some results refers to studies and research activities where TCExam was used.
    • > Advertisement
      • False (at least in commercial sense), TCexam is free and is covered by GNU-GLPv3 license.
    • > it has unclear notability
      • False, Sourceforge.net ranking statistics clearly shows that TCExam is one of the first 300 (sometimes under 200) over near 178,000 open source projects. Isn't that a clear measure of notability? This rank means also that TCexam is currently the first free and open-source Computer-Based Assessment Software of the world. Another notability fact is that this project has been translated by users in 13 languages, includic LTR Arabic language. As you can see on TCExam forums or searching with Google, several important Universities and institutions are using TCExam (for free, without pay a cent). Another important fact is the interest raised by the Joint Research Commission - European Community for this software.
    • I think that TCExam is every day increasing in popularity and this probably makes commercial software vendors more nervous... Nicolaasuni (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Read my inline comments to the comments of Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC):
>Firstly this isn't a vote.
Yes I know, I've read the wikipedia guidelines. I've changed "vote" in "opinion" Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Now to your other points. TCExam is a software product. It doesn't matter if it is free or £1000.00 per user.
In business, a product is a good or service which can be bought and sold. Following this definition, TCexam is NOT a product because it can't be bought or sold. Anyway, if TCExam is a software product, any software is a product, so what is the point? Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Next, Google is not the same as Google News and the statement about Google News is correct (as is yours about Google although some of those 101,000 hits are about Testicular Cancer).
This is clearly false. 101,000 Google results are just all about TCExam software (probably 2 or 3 about Testicular Cancer, and just because the page name). Google news is NOT a valid tool to measure a software popularity and notability. In fact, very popular software installed million times are never cited on Google News! For example the software "Ares galaxy" is download more than 150,000 times a day (more than 152,138,172 in total) and is never cited on Google news. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Thirdly, the article looked like an advertisement and some users are trying to help it not look that way in order to improve the article. Again whether or not TCExam is free does not change the way the article is written.
I think that someone has tried to mutilate the article. I've read another time the article and it only report FACTS in neutral point of view, so, could you please point me on the sentences that sounds like advertisement? Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Everyday increasing in popularity and being available in a number of places does not automatically make the software notable.
I agree, but seems that this is disturbing some companies that uses people that act like you to denigrate the free open source alternatives. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Neither does the Sourceforge.net automatically make it notable.
Probably is not automatic but scoring 191 over 175,969 projects 25 Apr 2008 statistics on the first and most important open source repository of the world is not an easy task and for sure an important clue of notability. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>I'm pretty sure there is notability criteria for software and/or computer products on wiki and would suggest having a look.
TCExam is going to be intergated as debian package and other distributions. The sourceforge.net statistics clearly shows that TCExam is currently the first (and most used) open-source Computer-Based Assessment Software of the world. Are not these notable things?
>You need to provide reliable 3rd party sources for the notability portion of this debate and present TCExam from a neutral point of view in the article. Perhaps you could create a simply pros/con table siting reliable 3rd party sources for each.
Here are some independent third-party TCExam articles/sources: Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, several forum comments, articles and blog entries are available in several languages (i.e.: Ujian Online dengan TCExam) - a deep Google search is required.
>Lastly, please read some of the policies around here particularly those about Good Faith and Civility. Coming on here and claiming that people are "vendors socket-puppets" is probably not the best way to approach the subject of the articles merits. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read better, I've never accused anyone to be a "vendor socket-puppet", I've just write "sounds like". As you probably know, there are a lot of people acting for commercial companies whose goal is to discredit competitors. Are you one of those? Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete without predjudice I can't find any third party reviews or other secondary sources to establish notability. I don't think a source forge ranking alone would count. If reviews appear, we can rebuild the article. spryde | talk 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For third party reviews and sourceforge comment please read my answer above. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've written a list of third party reviews above. These are the ones that could be easily find using Google. Other works are available but hard-to-find using google. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)



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.