Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notes (application) (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (application)

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

I don't think this article passes WP:GNG. It hasn't been the subject of reliable, significant, in-depth coverage. Most of the article isn't sourced. In fact, of the seven sources in the article, three of them are published by Apple itself, and only one is exclusively about the application (the Macworld article). As far as the application itself, there's nothing very special about it: not enough to warrant its own article, in my opinion. I also think it's telling that at the moment, the article isn't listed on the Note (disambiguation) page. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 09:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I don't see that anything has changed since the discussion at the first AfD, where this was kept based on valid arguments by several editors.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - per above ... the one argument that might be worth talking about is if every app made by apple on the iPhone is notable, simply because there's millions of them. On that note though, it doesn't require references, everyone knows there's millions of "Notes" on the iPhones, so references are needless too. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is the previous discussion still valid, but some people seem to forget that this is also an application for OS X, just like Dictionary (software) etc. It is not clear why this app should be removed while keeping the others.--5retf (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2015 (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.