Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiscInsert


 * 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. Consensus is that the 2 reviews in the article are insufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DiscInsert

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software. I'm not sure if reviews in lifehacker and inspectmygadget.com would represent significant coverage in reliable soureces, as I've never heard of them. Nothing significant on google news. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Per the two reviews. I previously thought that one was a copy of the other because Life Hacker had a link to the other one, but I was wrong. Joe Chill (talk)
 * Delete. A couple of reviews but no real evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 17:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. I'm the primary author of DiscInsert, so I'm certainly as biased a source as you'll get on this, but I thought I would chime in about lifehacker. According to the wikipedia article for it, lifehacker has been given many accolades, including one of the "25 Sites We Can't Live Without" in Time magazine. I think this would be enough to prove lifehacker a notable and reliable source. Whether or not a frontpage review of DiscInsert on lifehacker (as well as the lesser-known inspectmygadget) makes DiscInsert notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, I'm not sure. Cheers! Gazugafan (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - A very borderline article, but I think the external links (some of them anyway) just manage to assert notability. Per Joe Chill, more or less. WP:COI thing had me for a bit, and I get the feeling it has a very slightly promotional tone, but nothing too serious, or enough to !vote delete. Almost, though,  Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete on the basis that (a) the two cited sources are insufficient to ground a claim of "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources", and (b) nothing in the article or the sources explains why this software is other than run of the mill and deserving of encyclopaedic coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Ordinary consumer products get reviewed. Reviews do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no encyclopedic content. No claim of notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (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.