Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dooble (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dooble
Previous AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/Dooble
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability in reliable sources; sole evidence of notability that I'm aware of is here on Softpedia, but it appears to be a download page. The page was previously discussed here with a result of delete. The article was nominated for speedy deletion based on a re-creation of previously deleted content Db-g4 but contested so now it's here. I'm unaware if the page was an exact re-creation of the previous content, but the current version contains nothing to suggest it's had any attention in secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are several mentions at the well-known sites (e.g. Softpedia, Qt-Apps etc) despite the fact that the browser itself is extremely new and in an unfinished state. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe both Softpedia and Qt-Apps will list any software submitted as long as it is not a virus or something. RP9 (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I know very little about softpedia but it appears to be a download site; this makes it analagous to a sales or advertising mention in my mind, not the sort of reliable, independent secondary source mention we're looking for to clear WP:N. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any source establishing notability at all. RP9 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. An editor wrote "removed notability, as the article is longer than arora web browser, otherwise we need to act there too" in an edit summary and indeed that article does seem similar to the one at hand, so I took care of starting Articles for deletion/Arora (web browser). DMacks (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I checked the deleted version, and this present form is fairly different in content but does not address the concerns raised in previous AfD. I would have concurred with speedy, but since we're here, may as well give it a day or two. DMacks (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of reliably-published third-party press concerning this product. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eppstein. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 31 July 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.