Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DroidMsg

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DroidMsg

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

There is no evidence that this app satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited in the article is one review on a site called "The App Magazine", which does not appear to be very significant. (Also, the App magazine certainly includes paid-for features. It is not clear to me whether all of its content is paid advertising. Amongst other things, the site offers to publish a "Professionally Written and Featured App Review" for a fee of $100. However, even if it is not advertising, this one review in a not particularly notable source is not enough to establish notability.) The first few hits on a Google search for Droidmsg include www.droidmsg.com, download sites providing DroidMsg, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc etc, but nothing remotely resembling an independent reliable source. The article was deleted by PROD, and then restored after a request for deletion which gave as the reason "This page shouldn't be deleted because it is a free dating site", which is not a reason for non-deletion by Wikipedia standards. (The request for undeletion came from a single-purpose account with no edits not relating to DroidMsg. The creation of the article was by a similar single purpose account.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One review itself written in semi-PRspeak does not amount to in-depth coverage and I am finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability for this product. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, whose argument is pretty complete. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2014 (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.