Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coke Zero Facial Profiler (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. Lenticel ( talk ) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Coke Zero Facial Profiler
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article appears to have been created - by a user account with no other edits - for the sole purpose of promoting a (relatively non-notable) Facebook application. It has limited content and no significant edits in well over a year. It thus appears to contravene Wikipedia's guidelines on spam and notability (specifically, recentism). Robin S (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've just noticed that the result of the previous AfD (two years ago) was delete, yet the article still exists. What? Robin S (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As this application has been written about in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal , and CNET , I'd hardly gainsay its notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. It is completely irrelevant which editors created or contributed to the article or why they did it.  Everyone here is anonymous anyway unless they voluntarily disclose their real-life identity.  What does matter is notability WP:N, which requires reliable sources WP:RS:  If the sources exist, the topic is notable, no matter how much you dislike it.  And as Alessandra argues, sources don't get much better than the NY Times and The Wall Street Journal.  Msnicki (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: While reliable sources exist, this alone does not guarantee notability. I would argue that the cited coverage of this application falls under "routine reporting". The subject of the article fails pretty much every criterion for notability on the Notability (events) page: it was a temporary event, with limited if any long-term consequences, which received no news coverage beyond the immediate aftermath of release - and what coverage it did receive could hardly be called in-depth in the sense described on that page. Robin S (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * When you make it into the WSJ and the NYT with stories having bylines by actual human being reporters, it's not routine coverage anymore. They weren't just reprinting press releases; they wrote their own stories.  Under the guidelines, that's significant coverage.   Msnicki (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Software packages are not ordinarily considered to be events for notability purposes. Alternatively, we could consider the release as an event with a very significant enduring significance: the software was actively used by large numbers of people well after the "event". Most software, even packages we consider notable, will never receive significant coverage in extremely high-profile media, instead being relegated to computer-specific literature. When's the last time you read a detailed exposé about fsck in The New York Times? Being covered in sources such as The Wall Street Journal blows this software right out of the notability park. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per Wall Street Journal, New York Times and CNET coverage (see references section in article). Topic is notable per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per my vote at the last AfD. It only took two years for someone to notice its ready re-creation after the prior deletion, this happens much more commonly than some might think.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, and you find the New York Times article straight away. That's significant coverage.  Plus the other coverage found, proves without a doubt, its notable.   D r e a m Focus  00:08, 5 December 2011 (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.