Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DéjàClick


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

DéjàClick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable browser extension. Fails WP:GNG and has not been updated to work with the browser it claims to work with since Firefox changed technologies in November 2017. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and there are several tech blogs that wrote about this extension back when it was actively maintained . That being said, it's not a lot of coverage, and I'm somewhat torn on whether it's enough to pass WP:GNG, hence the weak keep. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Brief commentary from tech blogs is not sufficient to meet WP:NSOFT. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: let's dissect the references:
 * The third source in the article redirects to a page which doesn't even mention DejaClick.
 * Overall, it fails software notability and general notability guidelines.
 *  SITH   (talk)   14:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article are obviously terrible, but as I mentioned in my weak keep !vote above, there are at least decent sources available elsewhere which should be taken into consideration as well. Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article are obviously terrible, but as I mentioned in my weak keep !vote above, there are at least decent sources available elsewhere which should be taken into consideration as well. Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete – does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this review, but it would take several more like that to meet the requirement for significant coverage. Brad  v  16:36, 22 November 2018 (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.