Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeway (software)

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 keep based on additional sources found. RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway (software)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non-notable software package. Only sources/ELs are to the software's publisher and repositories; no third-party coverage indicated, nor can I find any. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also do not see any non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Novabrahm (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reviews and product comparisons in Mac related and other magazines: eg. Macworld, April 1997, p.58 (Uniqorn full page review); MacLife, September 2008, p. 61 (Freeway 2/3 page review); InfoWorld, 27 October 1997, p. 92A, 92F (Freeway 1.0 half page review). Enough to satisfy GNG. Pavlor (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1]Charmk (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WYSIWYG [sic] web design packages of this era were ten-a-penny. The notability bar for them would have to be higher than their mere existence. I'm seeing nothing to this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This software is over 22 years old! This means it's one of the early WYSIWYG tools Charmk (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andy Dingley: I´m preparing article rewrite (if I find the time), there are many high quality sources to establish notability (see my sandbox for more sources: [2]). Pavlor (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pavlor has demonstrated independent coverage sufficient to pass GNG. Haukur (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources provided above, notable. William2001^(talk) 21:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that there were quite a lot of them is pretty weak to claim that it's notability should be dramatically higher. The sourcing level is well above mere demonstration of existence. Strictly speaking it should probably meet WP:NCORP, but I believe it does that, too. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2019 (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.