Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boid for Android (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 DELETE. The discussion successfully removes the sources as being of any use to demonstrate notability. -Splash - tk 22:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Boid for Android
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not appear to pass notability and has been tagged as such since March 2012. I've looked on Google News, Newsbank, Trove, Google Books and I do not see independent sourcing which would imply the software is notable. LauraHale (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Borderline keep Appears to have marginal notability and is a decent quality stub, so I see no real reason to debate. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What sources confer notability? --LauraHale (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, 3, 4 all are about Boid for Android. Yes, they're not exactly from the New York Times, but they all speak about it. As mentioned, notability is marginal, but it's a decent stub that is verifiable, so I think that it's worth keeping. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What about these sites means they should be used to confer notability? A review site that looks to review almost every phone?  A site dedicated to android phones? Do the reviews feed to Google News, Newsbank, Lexis Nexis or some other database that indicates the source would confer notability? --LauraHale (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is on Google News and is about the kid who developed the app. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a blog. Why should this blog on Computer World be used to confer notability? --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs are used to substantiate content, especially when they are blogs under parent sites that would be considered reliable sources, such as this one. This one shows up on Google News, which furthers its credibility. I understand your disagreement, but I just think that this, coupled with the aforementioned sites, give it enough meat to keep, especially considering that this is a reasonably well-written, solid stub. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't "substantiate content" but confer notability. WP:RS does not mean it also confers notability. I don't find it compelling that a review site that reviews lots and lots of apps should confer notability, that a blog about the creator should also assist in conferring notability, a place to network and sell your product should assist in conferring notability. --LauraHale (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that substantiating content is different than establishing notability and as mentioned, I'm on the fence about this one, but I think that the collection of the sources does just enough to establish, albeit weakly, notability per WP:NSOFT. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * * Yes I understand that this is an essay, not policy... Go Phightins! (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per GNG and WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete since it fails the general notability guideline, as it doesn't have any significant coverage nor does it have sources that is independent of the subject (current citied Google/Android really isn't independent of the subject), therefore this article fails on reliable and verifiable sources. Bidgee (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are enough sources to prove notability. Reviews in publications about Android, phones or mobile software still count, provided they are independent of Google and of the app's creators and publisher (so Google Play isn't a reliable source but independent Android news may be assuming it meets requirements of independence and professionalism).  Blogs in publications like Computer World are reliable sources per WP:RS "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." There's no requirement that sources are in Google Books or NewsBank or Google News.  LauraHale claims "I don't find it compelling that a review site that reviews lots and lots of apps should confer notability" - Wikipedia policy doesn't care what you find compelling, what matters is what the notability guidelines say, and they say significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. They don't say "you can't have an app review from a computer publication or a film review from a film magazine or articles on science from a science journal".  Having an article on an app from someone who actually knows about apps would be considered a good thing by many people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Beyond the two sources in the article, which sources would confer notability? And no, a self published website for promoting your own work behind a paywall doesn't convey notability. Blogs don't convey notability.  There should be more than 3 sources for notability, or at least more than 3. Are there more? Where I looked, I didn't see them.--LauraHale (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs can convey notability if they are professionally produced by experts or journalists. WP:RS is clear that they can be reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)




 * 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.