Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChunkIt!

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. John254 00:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChunkIt!

nn browser addon, previously AFDed here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chunkit! ccwaters (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I've encountered most with trying to put an article on wikipedia is the user response when an article is put up for deletion. I don't mind having the article scheduled for deletion, as long as there is some constructive feedback for me to work with. As I stated in the talk page, I've thoroughly read the "what is notable and what isn't" article, so please don't ask me to do so. Wikipedia is a community run encyclopedia, anyone can edit it, yes, but it is the people like Ccwaters (and anyone else that responds to this) that really makes this website work out well. But Ccwaters (sorry to use you as an example), you haven't given me any constructive feedback. All you said was "nn browser add on". I will infer "nn" to be non-notable (I'm not well versed in Wikipedia jargon), but on the talk page I explained how I feel it is notable. I could find 10 other articles that can be considered "nn" under the same circumstances in which my article has been proposed for deletion. I'm taking the time to really try and understand why the article is being deleted (clearly considering this is my 5th time submitting the article), so I hope that the next person that responds can take the time to explain what I can do to make it so this doesn't happen again, instead of just an acronym filled sentence that has no real depth.Mjbyrne (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the previous time the article was deleted it seemed too much like an advert. In this case, it seems notability is the issue, and the main way to avoid deletion on those grounds is to provide "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", independent of Tigerlogic. I'm quoting from WP:WEB. I'll leave any further comments to the nominator, and anyone else contributing to this discuss, apart from to add that we don't usually compare an article's notability with other articles, but discuss each article up for deletion on its own merits. See WP:OSE Silverfish (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I've added some more sources as external links, and I feel there are now probably enough reliable, independent sources to indicate notability. Silverfish (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe being deleted 5 times previously is a sign that it shouldn't have an article. Its fairly obvious that the author who has RECREATED the article 5 times has a conflict of interest WP:COI and admits "I thought the product would gain some notability if it was on Wikipedia" [1]. As Silverfish stated before, pointing out other articles that might be candidates for deletion is not a valid argument here. Now, on to notability:per WP:RS, blogs are not reliable sources. I would argue the sources are weak: the best is the computerworld ref with may in fact be a bought article. That's 1, One questionable rehash of a press release. ccwaters (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as currently sourced by Chronicle of Higher Education, TechCrunch, and a library association. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:15, 5 August 2008 (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.