Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacroDroid

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 20:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacroDroid

[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)

A mobile app with no indication of notability or significance other than "it exists". Self-sourced, too. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was fully expecting this to be a delete, however, on searching I've found many articles dating back as far as 2012, which I feel establishes notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete (WP:G5, SPI). MarioGom (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
A speedy delete wouldn't be appropriate as I have made substantial edits to the article. NemesisAT (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Struck my !vote. MarioGom (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT: The two links to obscure websites you added did little to prove notability per WP:N. A speedy is perfectly warranted IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added five links, not two. NemesisAT (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A quick search turns up a number of third-party reviews, establishing notability. The article needs some work, but not deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few informercials in 2012–2014, when pretty much every Android app was making it to the media. Then one niche article in 2016 and another one in 2021. Does it make a piece of software so notable as to merit an encylopaedic article? I strongly doubt. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still found a few in-depth reviews. For the purposes of establishing notability please evaluate these:
ZDnet (reasonably respected publication) in-depth review: https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-app-has-made-me-fall-in-love-with-android/

Android Headlines review: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/05/macrodroid-is-a-very-capable-device-automation-app.html

https://www.talkandroid.com/122019-featured-play-store-newbie-macrodroid-tools/

Two sources in other languages (I can not evaluate them, but at first glance they appear genuine):
https://lifehacker.ru/macrodroid/

https://helpix.ru/appinion/201712/2053-macrodroid-delaem_telefon_esche_umnee.html

Also, I updated my vote to "weak keep", since I don't have a strong opinion either way. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2021 (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.