Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtango


 * 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.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Downtango

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Software piece. We are not softpedia, and this seems to fail WP:N (and the sole reliable ref in the article, from NBC news, does not seem to mention the product at all...). I discussed this with the creator briefly, his counterargument was that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sadly, this does not fly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep -, , , , - probably not the classic definition of reliable sources, but there's lots of these review sites, and it's free software, so they're unlikely to have been payed-for reviews. The article needs renaming to DownTango if kept. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep The references quoted by Lukeno94 seem independent of the software creator and of each other and are all reasonably in depth. Some references are borderline reliable--sites such as http://www.techfeb.com are blogs, but with likely thousands of followers. I agree that the article should be renamed to DownTango. Mark viking (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a notable piece of software. The reviews found are not suitable for use as references. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources above are "acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" per WP:USERG. Unfortunately, none of the sources meet the above criteria which means it has yet to attract the attention of the "professionals in the field". I've noticed that it is still a new software, so there might be better sources about it in the future. Nimuaq (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete per Nimuaq above, mostly. What strikes me as strange is that almost all of the reader comments attached to those "reviews" are negative, to the point of ultra-hostility. Far from having made a notable contribution to its industry, the software in question seems best known for having developers who don't answer user questions or concerns. Very strange. Stalwart 111  02:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. — Ed! (talk) 16:25, 14 January 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.