Talk:Spectasia

It is true that the original author of this article is also the author of the Spectasia software. But all of the cited references are checkable. For example, the article describes a program that has been downloaded 50,000 times in the last 2 years (do a search on Google for Spectasia and you get 8000 + links - many for download sites which show 1000's of downloads for Spectasia - if you add them all up it comes to well over 50,000). The article now has 14 references (1 scientific paper, 1 book and another keynote) at which Spectaisa has been cited. The article quotes from a full review by softomic for a Beta version of the software. Also http://mac.softpedia.com has seen 100 downloads in 2 weeks and the software has been rated 3.1 /5 = Good by 12 users. Spectasia has also been featured in 3 major worldwide publications, Engineering and Technology, MacFormat, and .Net magazines. A UK Patent has been published GB 2440197 on the technology behind Specatsia and once again readers are free to look this up. All of these references are now cited in the article and anyone can look them up. Given all these cited references, the charge of lack notability may not stand up to independent analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanradley (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm - that looks like a personal attack. (Suggest you delete your attack). Back to the point - it reads like an advertisement, is an apparent conflict of interest, and I was just going to suggest that you find some evidence of notability which you did not write yourself. Hope that helps. Tedickey (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spectasia_Logo.png may be deleted

I have tagged File:Spectasia_Logo.png, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]