Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatterati (extension)


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 11:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Chatterati (extension)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Software article with only one primary reference fails WP:GNC. No independent sources found on Google news, Google books and HighBeam Research. - MrX 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability per WP:GNG; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not delete - I am the developer of this software, and would like the wikipedia entry so that users are able to find out more information about it. This is also my first wikipedia article, so my apologies if the stub does not conform to wiki guidelines. As for external sources, I can point out two -
 * http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9927856.htm


 * http://www.smashpixels.com/chatterati-can-turn-any-webpage-into-a-forum/
 * The software itself is available at the Chrome store -
 * https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chatterati/gcofjgcjnfblnifodeniggbibpidbhcg?hl=en
 * Siliconeyes (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that wishing to have a website to promote your product is not an appropriate reason for having an entry in an encyclopedia, see more about this here - the policy that the editors must follow is to find significant independent coverage in order to establish the level of notability required for a subject to qualify for an article, and you can read about this more here. A posting of a press release or similar material on a blog is unlikely to be considered significant coverage, there are a lot of apps created, but quite a low proportion reach the levels of recognition that would render them encyclopedic.  I hope that will help you a bit in understanding why people are voting for Delete for this article.   nonsense  ferret  15:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete – Come back in two years – or how long does it take a business to become the most successful company in AppStore? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of basic or specific notability. Software merely exists. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not now, too soon; maybe after there is reliable sources to establish notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA who above describes article's purpose as promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (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.