Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scanalyzer

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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scanalyzer

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this app, released in March 2011. Zero refs, and tagged for its lack of them for the past nine months. Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim is that this $10 app has sold 150 copies. It is not clear why this should make it notable, nor do there appear to be WP:RS sources saying anything substantial about it. Fails WP:N. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By asserting sales of only 150 copies of this app, this article is asserting non-notability for the app. The article might as well have a big banner on it that says "I AM ABOUT A NON-NOTABLE TOPIC. PLEASE DELETE ME." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software, Zero Verifiable-Reliable sources that demonstrate notability of software. Hasteur (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspected I would not find any reviews with only 150 sales (how does their twitter page have 1500+ followers?); as such, I couldn't find any coverage of this product in reliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral in its current form there are no reliable sources, however the invention appears to be novel and unique and it that can be shown it should be kept, also a Scanalyzer appears to be a motor vehicle part that would merit inclusion as well as would carborator or transmission.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you are referring to. This is an app for cell phones, not part of a motor vehicle. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absense of high-quality verifiable sources, and as such fails WP:GNG. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:00, 27 December 2011 (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.