Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NotScripts

NotScripts

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

I'm a bit unclear on notability for this one. This browser extension is no longer supported by the creator, and is in fact no longer available for download in Google's web store. I've since removed the stale links, but the only thing that would lend any notability in this case is the article on Lifehacker that yet remains - and if I remember WP:N correctly, we need more than one article to convey that notability. On the other hand, notability is not temporary. But on the gripping hand, there are plenty of cases that state that notability is not permanent, either.

I'm bringing this to AFD, rather than PROD, because I feel discussion should probably be out on the forefront if there is to be discussion on this topic - and a speedy is definitely right out. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator) Improved - there's three WP:RS satisfying WP:GNG, and further sources in books [1], [2], and a claim of notability as the first NoScript like extension on Chrome. Widefox; talk 14:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - although expanding more than a stub may be difficult. Widefox; talk 22:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to add to this, the brief mention and/or bibliographical entries in the books you mention wouldn't qualify, actually. As to the other articles you provide, that's the part I'm unclear on - if prior mention of these, with little else to go on, could constitute notability under GNG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]