Draft talk:Keypunch Software

AKLKPhilo (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Draft talk:Keypunch Software

Wikipedia Banners

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

AKLKPhilo (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have revised the draft to address the concerns regarding WP:NCORP. The subject's notability is established through its documented historical role in the "budget/shovelware" sector of the 1980s software market.

The article now frames the company as a primary example of the "shareware controversy" of the 1980s a topic covered by modern retro-computing history references (Suter, CRPG Addict).

I believe these sources collectively demonstrate that Keypunch Software was a significant and controversial entity in the 1980s software publishing landscape. AKLKPhilo (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Resubmission Rationale: I have addressed the WP:NCORP concerns by pivoting the article to focus on the company's historical role in the shareware distribution controversy.

Academic Coverage: Added analysis from historian Beat Suter (Zurich University of the Arts, 2024), establishing the subject as historically significant in the software industry.

Verified Industry Coverage: Replaced broken links with verified citations from Compute! (1986 and 1990) to prove national media coverage and corporate structure.

Removed Unverifiable Claims: Removed claims regarding the founder's background that could not be verified with prior used sources, focusing now strictly on the company's documented business activities in the "shovelware" market. AKLKPhilo (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is my sixth submission for this draft. I want to clarify a few points to assist with the review, as previous rejections have centered on sourcing issues that I believe should be resolved.

1. Declaration of Independence: I have absolutely no personal or professional connection to Keypunch Software (which has been defunct for 30 years). My persistence stems solely from an interest in accurate retro-computing history, especially for Apple and Atari computers. I am not editing with a Conflict of Interest (COI).

2. Addressing Previous "Verification" Issues: Previous reviews flagged broken links or page number errors in Billboard magazine citations. I have removed all disputed Billboard references entirely. Verified references from Antic (1987) and Compute! (1986) that explicitly note the software products mentioned.

3. Notability WP:NCORP: I understand the bar for corporate notability is high. I have pivoted the article to satisfy this by focusing on the company's historical role in the "shareware/shovelware" controversy, supported by:

-Academic Coverage: Beat Suter / Zurich University of the Arts (2024). -National Media: Compute! (May 1990) confirming the "Box Office Software" subsidiary.

I ask that this draft submission be reviewed based on the current, verified citations rather than the history of previous, weaker drafts. Thank you. AKLKPhilo (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@AKLKPhilo: I have assessed the sources cited in the draft:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes Says that it is a WP:BLOG Yes Yes
Yes No Passing mention
No Probably not No Only one sentence
Yes No Not significant
No No Passing mention
Yes No Passing mention
No Just mentions No
No WP:BLOG
No Self-published No Just a mention
As you can see, no sources are cited that contribute towards the organization's notability. Please note that we need multiple, in-depth, independent, reliable, secondary sources about the company. Your draft is going to be accepted only if you cite sources like this, which demonstrate the subject's notability. To reiterate, the draft needs multiple sources that meet all of the following criteria: (1) in-depth, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary. If these are not present in the draft, it will continue to be declined and ultimately be permanently rejected. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know or ask at the help desk. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I am resubmitting the draft with specific fixes for the issues noted in the review table.
- Correction on Source 1 WP:BLOG: The review table incorrectly flagged the "Confoederatio Ludens" source as an unreliable blog. This source is a published output of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), authored by Dr. Beat Suter (Senior Lecturer, Zurich University of the Arts). It is an academic source meeting the "Reliable" and "Secondary" criteria.
- Replaced Listing Sources: I have removed the "Inlay" and "Billboard" sources flagged as primary/passing mentions. I have replaced them with Antic (March 1987) and Compute! (Sept 1986), which contain editorial coverage of the company's software lineup (Warship, Trivia Master, etc.) in their New Products sections.
- Removed Unverified Claims: I have removed the section regarding the "Box Office Software" subsidiary to focus strictly on the verifiable Keypunch Software history.
- Independence: I have no connection to this defunct company. This article is an attempt to document a notable example of the "shareware -shovelware" business model of the 1980s, which is the subject of the academic research cited above. AKLKPhilo (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.