Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airy (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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airy (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)

Fails WP:ORGCRITE, WP:PRODUCT, and WP:NSOFTWARE. Breakdown of sources:

Softpedia: brief and routine review
Extremely short review
How to article
How to article
Blog
Decent review that passes the review criteria, but fails WP:AUD. Is also a blog
1 paragraph review
1 paragraph about the app. The rest is incoherent rambling
Self published blog
Review by "download.com staff". Short and not in depth
Softpedia again
Self published
List, promotional, brief
Top 10 blog
Top 10 self published
Top 5 self published

None of these sources establish notability, only existence. Youtube downloaders are WP:MILL stuff that should have a very high standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the massive research done by the nom. I would say he could be right about many of his points but there are points that ultimately subjective in nature and should be instead handled on talk page of the article not AfD. desmay (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is the only article I found that could be used to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or week keep, there's at least two reviews that count as RS + Macworld, passing WP:GNG, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 19:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which reviews would those be? None of the reviews I looked at passed WP:ORGCRITE requirements for product reviews. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said Macworld [1]. i.e. that passes WP:ORG#Product reviews 1.,2.,3. I count at least two or three (Softpedia, cnet.com is borderline, savedelete is OK), we just disagree on the bar for counting them, and the premise of the nom Youtube downloaders are WP:MILL stuff that should have a very high standard for inclusion in Wikipedia has no basis in policy. I.e. there's no basis for raising the bar in policy. The standard for inclusion is WP:GNG and these types of sources are commonly used. I agree there's weaknesses in sourcing, but on balance we disagree on what counts as RS and the bar for normal standards here. I think the article needs cleanup/reduce promo but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP.Widefox; talk 11:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 19 September 2018 (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.